Last week, we noted that the Change To Win unions were quickly pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into the primary efforts in Texas and Ohio, while Senator Obama had previously criticized the Clinton and Edwards campaigns' reliance on cash from organized labor.
Does the acceptance of hundreds of thousands of dollars and resources from union PACs mean the Senator will be beholden to organized labor as President? Perhaps a passage from his memoir, via the Investors' Business Daily, will shed some light on the question:
"For seven years I had been (the unions') ally in the state legislature, sponsoring many of their bills and making their case on the floor," Obama wrote in his political memoir, "The Audacity of Hope."
He credits unions with saving his U.S. Senate bid. After the AFL-CIO backed a rival for the Democratic nomination, several big service worker unions endorsed Obama anyway, helping him get the nod.
"So I owe those unions. When their leaders call, I do my best to call them back right away," he wrote, adding, "I don't consider this corrupting in any way. . . . I got into politics to fight for these folks, and I'm glad a union is around to remind me of their struggles."
Perhaps his views on PAC campaign-funding are indeed "still evolving" -- particularly when the PACs belong to unions. But just this week, campaigning in Ohio, Sen. Obama left no doubt about his future legislative priorities as President:
"It is time to let unions do what they do best: organize," Obama said during a stop at a drywall factory in Lorain, Ohio. "That's why we need to go ahead and pass the Employee Free Choice Act."
It doesn't matter how misguided and un-American that legislation is, nor how it will impact American industry. After all, he "owes" them...
0 comments:
Post a Comment