Indirect Political Funding

Apples are apples.

When a union member pays dues (those do not go to politics, btw) or extra deduction to their union related political organizations, Republicans are outraged. They claim the taxpayer is funding Democrats. Total B.S. of course, it's the union member's money at that point and no longer belongs to the government.

When Democrats decline to do business with M&I or local businesses that fund Republican candidates, Republicans are also outraged. Outraged I say!

Either you can be offended by indirect funding or not. To be offended in one case but not another is hypocrisy. Sometimes both sides work harder on scoring points against one another than they do trying to get things done. That's a shame but it's also reality.

I have absolutely no objection to someone who lives in a district contributing to a candidate seeking to represent that district. Sometimes their views are not my views and that's OK. When a business directly supports a candidate who works against positions I support, they lose my business. (I'm talking to YOU shoe repair store on University Avenue and Chambers of Commerce!) It turns me off when a major shareholder or executive supports someone I don't but it's not the end of the world. Life is complex. Liberals, progressives and union minded folk are rightfully concerned about the agenda the Koch brothers are funding with profits from their business empire. What people don't think about is that same business empire has many employees who would be hurt by boycott and many of them are union employees.