« Final PPP Poll: Hillary Ahead In Indiana, But Obama Closing The Gap | Home | It's Official: John And Elizabeth Edwards Will Not Endorse In Prez Race »

Labor War: Change To Win Hammers AFSCME For "Lying" In "Deplorable" Pro-Hillary Leaflet

A last-minute intra-labor war...

Change to Win, the powerful labor coalition backing Barack Obama, has just put out a scathing statement attacking AFSCME in response to our story below reporting that AFSCME had distributed a pro-Hillary flyer in Indiana that didn't clearly identify AFSCME as the author.

As I reported below, the leaflet concludes by saying: "This message brought to you by your union." So if it fell into the hands of a member of another union, even one supporting Obama, he or she could conclude that his or her own union was behind the pro-Hillary message.

Here's the statement from Change to Win's executive director, Greg Tarpinian...

"It's a shame that the discourse of the Democratic presidential primary campaign has sunk to the point of lying to our union brothers and sisters on the eve of the Indiana primary election. These deplorable and dishonest tactics undermine our democratic process and the hard work of thousands of Change to Win and other union members and volunteers working tirelessly to help make Sen. Barack Obama the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee. We expect these types of deplorable tactics from the McCain campaign, not AFSCME."

Pretty harsh stuff. As I reported below, the director of AFSCME council 62, Dave Warrick, argued that the union wasn't obliged to include the disclaimer, because the piece wasn't sent out as a mass mailing and was intended for distribution to AFSCME members only.

But he conceded it was possible that it could end up in the hands of non-AFSCME members.


47 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

It wasn't there intent... as far as I know.

user-pic

Their.. even... ugh... Monday's

user-pic

The flyer clearly says "your union" and then fails to say "AFSCME" anywhere.

Oops? Get real. There's no way in hell that was accidental.

Anything a group puts out has their identity on it, usually multiple times, if they're proud of it. Not only is self identifying universally practiced, it's campaign law.

Good, there is absolutely no legitimate reason for AFSCME to not disclose the source of their mailer. The only reason is deception, just like the illegal robocalls in NC.

user-pic

Greg,

Can you call a campaign finance lawyer and ask about the legality of it? I think we need an expert opinion here.

We dont need an expert! Expert opinion is always on the side of doing things that don't benefit the vast majority of the American people!

user-pic

I agree.

I find it prima facie evidence of intent to deceive when and org or political party does that - that is a cute little trick the Republicans pioneered, too, so far as I know.


user-pic

Totally agree. Unions don't send out literature without their name and logo on it - it really just doesn't happen. Dancing Bear had a good point downthread, Greg - it would be helpful to ask AFSCME to produce another piece of literature that they've distributed without their name on it. I bet they won't be able to furnish anything.

user-pic

"Unions don't send out literature without their name and logo on it - it really just doesn't happen."

Right. It's totally absurd to think they forgot to include their letterhead and graphics, and not even their name.

"Letterhead? Graphics? Name of the Union? Huh? What's dem tings?"

Suuuuuure. Classic dirty tricks.

I disagree. But not with anything in particular. I'm just in a disagreeable mood this evening.

user-pic

...argued that the union wasn't obliged to include the disclaimer, because the piece wasn't sent out as a mass mailing and was intended for distribution door-to-door to AFSCME members only.

Gee, I guess they covered their butts on that one. Funny how they were ready with that answer.

user-pic

"Read the fine print, asshole" - Randi Rhodes was right...

user-pic

I think it is about time Hillary's main union endorsement, the Walmart union, weighs in on this.

Why is AFSCME afraid to put their name on the literature that they are distributing, if they are on the up and up.

They have been caught cheating, and trying to
Swiftboat all Union members.

Hillary is not only dividing the party, but now she is divising unions!

Clinton = bad candy!

They mis-wrote.

As I reported below, the director of AFSCME council 62, Dave Warrick, argued that the union wasn't obliged to include the disclaimer...


So if they weren't obliged to include a disclaimer, why did they include one that was misleading? Hmmmm???

Consorting With Hillary gave AFSCME Liar Cooties!

user-pic

Greg, as I suggested in the other thread, ask AFSCME for some other examples of leaflets they've prepared that don't include their name or logo.

Obamic paranoia.

So far has anyone any evidence that this was distributed to anyone outside the union? It was in-house collateral.

Obamites are already preparing their vast list of conspiracy excuses as to why Obama lost IN and NC.

Desperation........

user-pic

The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy; the Boy's Club Conspiracy; the Media anti-Woman Conspiracy; the Always Give the Broad the First Question conspiracy...et cetera

you stupid headless chicken

No, the headless Chicken-O will appear after tomorrow.

By June 3rd he will be a 3-piece meal.

Would you like a side of slaw with that?

user-pic

You should consider rejoining the reality based community. It's nice here.

I've been to Ohio. No thanks.

user-pic

now that's not funny!

user-pic

So far has anyone any evidence that this was distributed to anyone outside the union? It was in-house collateral.

Yeah, that's right. And Bush doesn't lie. He sometimes gets things wrong, but you can't prove that it's intentional.

Geez, fogu, you've got the persistent denial and all the logical fallacies down pat. Bravo. You'll be warmly welcomed in the McCain campaign when Hillary is out of the running.

user-pic

The only real union, The Union of Soviet Socialistic Republics, is supporting Hillary, according to an official memo.

Do they think anyone's going to buy that excuse?

user-pic

Oh my my. Now Greg is being asked to ask AFSCME to produce evidence that they are not crooks, because even though this is America, AFSCME is a union that supports Hillary Clinton and is not entitled to an absolute and fundamental presumption of innocence. [Folks should know that they are arguing that AFSCME has committed a crime here.]

All these unbiased geniuses can't conceive of the possibility that AFSCME used a generic flyer to hand out to their members. I know, maybe the flyer was prepared by another group, like the Clinton campaign, and if that's the case let's hang the bastards. Please.

Finally, as anyone with any exposure to the labor movement knows like the back of their hand, the schism beween AFSCME and other unions and Change to Win has nothing to do with this election, but
rather took place approximately three years ago. At that time, the Change to Win unions decided for reasons related to organizing and per capita assessments to the AFL-CIO to pull out of the Federation. Now, Change to Win has placed its bets on an Obama win big time, and Change to Win wants an Obama win big time. Of course, that reality could have nothing to do with the fun little scrum over the evil flyer that lacks a logo. Hee.

Some people can cry wolf only so many times. Others can claim the sky is falling only so many times. And still others can point to scandal and bias. . .again only so many times. For a certain some around here, oh how the toothpaste is out of the tube.

user-pic

No - you don't get it. Downplay it if you like, but you are trying to make this into something besides what it is.

See, the lack of identifying source that we are talking about IS the illegal act.

The only question is intent, and it's looking bad on that since they can't say other unions' members didn't get this.

Nice try at spinning it - sorta.

user-pic

"See, the lack of identifying source that we are talking about IS the illegal act."

How is that illegal?

What is the illegal intent Tena? What are you claiming has been done here? Do you even know? Does it even matter? Everyone, check that, everyone and then some knows Tena that the only thing you care about with respect to this story is whether it will hurt Hillary Clinton. Of course, it won't, and then you can get mad and commiserate with the other Obama right or wrongers and you can all blame Greg Sargent and his undeniable bias. Laugh out loud, and you may have the last word and then some. Throw in a couple of curse words like you often do and then we'll know you're really serious (hardly). I was going to close by saying that people like you are helping to obliterate this website, but that would be presumptuous on my part.

user-pic

I apologize. That was way too harsh. You have at least as much right to be here as I do.

user-pic

I'm not claiming it's illegal. I'm saying it's deliberate and slimy.

user-pic

In other words - the lack of identification is the evidence of the intent to deceive and the deception is that other unions' members got this and it was deceptive - it seemed to say it came from their union.


user-pic

According to the FEC website, this sounds like a violation of the law.

A disclaimer is required on any political communication.

As defined in FEC regulations, the term "public communication" includes:

* Broadcast, cable or satellite transmission;
* Newspaper;
* Magazine;
* Outdoor advertising facility (e.g., billboard);
* Mass mailing (defined as more than 500 pieces of mail matter of an identical or substantially similar nature within any 30-day period);
* Telephone banks (defined as more than 500 telephone calls of an identical or substantially similar nature within any 30-day period); or
* Any other general public political advertising. General public political advertising does not include Internet ads, except for communications placed for a fee on another person’s web site

And on messages not authorized by the candidate the disclaimer must read:

On a public communication that is not authorized by a candidate or his/her campaign committee, the disclaimer notice must identify who paid for the message, state that it was not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee and list the permanent street address, telephone number or World Wide Web address of the person who paid for the communication. 11 CFR 110.11(b)(3).

Example: "Paid for by the QRS Committee (www.QRScommittee.org) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee."


It was not public. I falls into none of the categories you listed.

So sorry, you lose. Next contestant please.

user-pic

These were fliers being delivered to the public, so yes they count as "general public political advertising." The only advertising that the FEC exempts from this description are internet ads.

The only items that do not require a disclaimer are:

situations where a disclaimer notice cannot be conveniently printed, the notice is not required. This provision affects items such as pens, bumper stickers, campaign pins, campaign buttons and similar small items. Further, a disclaimer notice is not required for communications using skywriting, clothing, water towers or other forms of advertisement where it would be impracticable to display the disclaimer notice.

You need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

user-pic

They say they weren't giving the fliers to the public, only by in-person delivery to their members. As somebody else pointed out, that seems odd in itself; why wouldn't you mail this to your members? And show me any other leaflet AFSCME has produced that doesn't have their name and logo on it. It just smells.

I wonder how many copies of each leaflet they were delivering to their members?

My union endorses Obama, I know this because I read the local and international newsletters almost every month. My guess is many of my brothers at this point have no clue who the union has endorsed. I am an Obama supporter but find this kind of a stupid arguement. If some random pamphlet without the union's name says "from your union" and someone concludes that MUST mean their union by virtue of the fact that they happen to be reading it, and also supposedly the material influences them differently than had it said "from a very big union named AFSCEME" instead, is stupid.

user-pic

If you're correct then why do unions bother to endorse at all? Clearly the idea is that your union leadership has more influence over its members than the leadership of a different union.

That's why AFSCME's leadership wants to tell their members who they support, right?

If your union used its resources and influence with its members to support Obama, how do you think they'd feel if AFSCME then dropped a bundle of these leaflets at your shop?

I would be funny if they got so angry they forgot to vote.

Too late. You're already funny. But in a weird-uncle-you-only-see-at-holidays sort of fashion.

If Woodie Guthrie were alive and happened to sing at an Obama/Change to Win rally and sung "I'm stickin with the union 'til the day I die" wouldn't that be deceptive? Since the number was written before Obama was born and before many of the Change to Win unions were chartered, by FEC law Woodie would have to make a disclaimer I think, and reveal who paid for his hobo bundle on a stick and banjo strings during the depression years when he ambled about the dustbowl making this song well known and influential. ;)

AFSCME President Gerald McEntee has his nose so far up the Clintons' asses, he can see out their mouths. He got suckered in by Bill Clinton inviting him to watch the Super Bowl at the White House and now he's hoping for more of the same. The idea that the Change to Win union presidents might get a White House invite before him is probably driving him bat shit.

And what exactly does this have to do with the needs of AFSCME members?

I don't know how AFSCME can continue to back her campaign after McEntee demanded she fire Mark Penn after his Colombian Free Trade Agreement debacle and instead of doing precisely that, she went through the charade of "demoting" him, while keeping him on staff and continuing to pay millions of dollars to his firm, Burson Marstellar, which proudly represents union-busters.

Hillary blew McEntee off -- made him look like a powerless fool -- and still he spends hundreds of thousands of dollars to try to elect her. It's pathetic.

It is a shame. Labors should have kept their powder dry and try to spend all the money on behalf the winner of the primary. Why waste money against each other? Moveon.org the same way? Shame on you, all you stupid special interests!

I wrote this on the original post about these flyers. There's probably a way to link to it, but I don't know how to do that, so I'm going to paste it here:


I'm surprised that so many people above said that they've worked with unions, because if that was really the case, then this wouldn't have been blown out of proportion.

I am a union member. My union (and others) joined AFSCME to support Hillary Clinton. Their union had a good organization on the ground already, so it made sense to me that we were teaming up with them.

Instead of all of us making our own door hangers and flyers, these unions got together, worked out one piece they could all agree upon, and then distributed them to only their own members.

I don't know for sure because I am just a door-knocker, but the lists we've been given have always just been our own union membership lists.

I've knocked on a lot of doors, and I've never been asked by my union to talk to households that aren't union families. I am pretty sure it's illegal.

I've worked really hard, and I did it fairly. I've even spent weekends away from home to help out. Imagine what it feels like to do all that then to hear you people say that it's just "dirty tricks."

I am an AFSCME member, and my understanding is that AFSCME polled its members early on (too early if you ask me), and the members chose Hillary Clinton.

Leave a comment

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address