They do. They can stop giving money to whatever corporate entity doesn’t please them.
So, they have separate piles of money? Over here, this the money that didn’t go to the government for taxes, but over here is the money that didn’t go for taxes? I was raised Methodist, we didn’t have any Jesuits to teach us logic.
Well the union isn’t using its members money then. Once the dues are paid to the union, they belong to the union. The union is using the union’s dollars for lobbying. You trying to use a general fund to obscure a quantity of a fungible good, a kind of logical laundering. However that strategy works both ways. Your actions do not line with your moral statement that: “It’s immoral to force people to pay you money for political lobbying” that you are attempting to use against SEIU.
QEDEDEDED, that’s 4x the normal, erat demonstrandum, for those keeping score.
Your OP " *Propositions 75 and 76. Proposition 75 would have required unions to obtain employees’ consent before charging them fees to be used for political purposes… " *
Did it require *Corporations *to obtain shareholders consent before spending funds for political purposes?
One individual’s money goes to one union, which uses them for political stuff. One step from individual to group using money for politics. One step.
As opposed to:
You tax dollars go to the government. The government doesn’t use them to send political messages. Instead it fun a whole bunch of programs, one of which is a plan to not collect taxes from non-profits… And those non-profits engage in political stuff. How many steps is that? More than one, anyway.
No.
But the distinction is that corporations do not charge shareholders fees.
Except for the part where you pay for the stock. Or is that not actually a “fee”? But still money, right, even if it has been stepped on?
I suppose it’s possible you’d be buying the stock from the company, although the vast majority of stock purchases don’t involve buying stock from the company.
In any event, you buy stock, you get a share of stock. The previous owner of the stock, whoever it is, gives up the stock and gets your money; you give up your money and get the stock. There’s no additional fee that the company takes and uses.
The number of steps is not relevant. Come on man, you’re trying to practically give me the Chewbacca defense.
Bottom line, the Catholic Church is trying oppress people with money taken right out of those same people’s pockets and put in the Catholic Church’s grubby hands.
“It’s immoral to force people to pay you money for political lobbying”, you said it, and the Catholic Church is lobbying using money people were forced to pay.
You support your own immorality, bricker.
The number of steps is critical.
If you donate to NAMBLA, that’s immoral.
If you pay an electrician to fix your breaker box, and he takes your money and buys a used car, and the car seller donates that money to NAMBLA, you have no moral responsibility.
At least as I see it. Your moral system may be different, but that’s fine. In my moral system, the number of steps is very relevant.
I see! So, in the first instance, you are a stockholder, but in the other you are a stock holder.
Yeah, this part I pretty much knew, but thanks.
This equivalency is ridiculous. You are not forced to buy shares in a company, therefore you are presumed to be able to do due diligence and not invest in a company in opposition to your political goals/values.
In the case being discussed here, the people who are objecting ARE legally forced to pay dues to the union, and therefore they have a legal (and, IMHO, moral) right to not have those dues used in opposition to their political goals/values.
I agree there are very good historical reasons for unions to spend union money on political efforts. Nonetheless, I’m opposed to it on the grounds of freedom of political association.
Mind you, I’m also in favor of reestablishing closed shops–it’s none of my business who a manager elects to hire, so long as he’s not discriminating against a protected class, therefore we should allow companies to require that employees be dues-paying members of a particular union. 
No, but in order to spend $$ on political donations, the Corp must use cash assets, which would otherwise go to the shareholders in the way of dividends. Thus, when a Corp donates money to a political cause it is forcing it’s shareholders to donate just exactly like a Union does.
Now see why did you have go with NAMBLA? Why couldn’t it be the Kitten Eaters Association? In fact, I’m just going to pretend you said that because, in light of certain issues, and organization of pedophiles would sound like a distasteful cheap shot with how I’m going to use that. So you said Kitten Eaters, not NAMBLA, got it? Good!
Anyway, except in this scenario, you’re directly supporting the Kitten Eaters use all those nice people’s money, without their knowledge. Further if I knew using that electrician would cause the Kitten Eaters to be funded, I would use a different electrician. I would be immoral to enable Kitten Eating.
Where as I, and everybody else, only has one government to choose from, short of leaving our homes, and everyone we love. A government I know will subsidize the Kitten Eaters. Normally I would take the good with the bad, but I’m exploring your statement that:
“It’s immoral to force people to pay you money for political lobbying”
You still seem confused.
There is no second instance. Corporations do not charge shareholders fees. Not even “for the part where you pay for the stock.” There is also no distinction between shareholder and “share holder.”
Well, looks like you and I have a differing method of moral analysis. In my moral system, the number of steps matters. If it does not to you, then govern yourself accordingly.
No.
The corporation has no obligation to return cash assets to shareholders as dividends. And shareholders are free to divest themselves of shares at any time. Finally, the cash the corporation has did not necessarily come from the shareholders.
So nothing like what the union does.
True enough, but you are buying into a group effort, no? Why, in a way, a corporation is very much like a collective, except evil!
And which political goals and values are you talking about? Does being a union require that every union member sign off on every jot and tittle of some agenda? Its like Democrats: most are pro-choice, some are not, and some have left in protest.
Every union member has a choice. He doesn’t have to sign off on every jot and tittle. He just gets to decide if he wants to contribute to the union’s political activities. Freedom.