TUESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2006
It's in the P-I: Union-hater-for-hire Richard Berman

In today's Seattle Post-Intelligencer, notorious Washington D.C. lobbyist Richard Berman brings his lucrative PR campaign to damage public opinion of unions to our Washington.  But before the staff of WSLC Reports Today debunks his half-baked arguments, first let's consider the source.

Here's a guy straight out of the movie Thank You for Smoking -- a D.C. hired gun who'll make any argument, if the price is right. He's been paid to oppose the Centers for Disease Controls' efforts to restrict smoking (he says there's a "lack of evidence that second-hand smoke causes cancer"), to oppose public-health groups trying to fight obesity and limit the use of deadly transfats, to oppose Mothers Against Drunk Driving (which he calls "professional fund-raisers" trying to "scare us away from even responsible drinking.")

A USAToday profile described Berman as "apparently the most hated example of a third party hired by companies to be their public face as they take on unpopular battles."

The last time Berman came to this Washington, it was to oppose the 1998 minimum wage initiative -- spearheaded by this Washington State Labor Council -- which voters approved by a 2-to-1 margin. He resurfaced a few years later to push brand-new President George Bush's nonstarter plan to allow states to "opt out" of the federal minimum wage and other wage-and-hour laws.

Now, one of the several front groups he runs from his D.C. H.Q., is something called the Center for Union Facts, created solely to undermine public support for unions and support legislation, like so-called right-to-work laws, that makes it more difficult for workers to join unions. The group's inception was reportedly funded by $8 million from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. But now, no individuals, foundations or corporations have come forward to admit any sponsorship of Berman's Center, and he aggressively protects his clients' anonymity. That said, we do know that Berman's efforts are being supported by the Bush administration (and your tax dollars).

If you need more evidence that Richard Berman is a shameless scumbag, click here.

As for Berman's op-ed in today's Seattle P-I, it's on the subject of the U.S. Supreme Court agreeing to hear an appeal of the Washington State Supreme Court's decision against the Evergreen Freedom Foundation -- Washington's own "Center for Union Facts," funded by the Walton Foundation, among other right-wing special interests. The case is part of the EFF's never-ending quest to silence the Washington Education Association and other unions by creating restrictions on labor's ability to participate in the political process.

At issue is 1992's Initiative 134, which enacted sweeping campaign finance reforms in Washington state.  Those of us who were around back then remember these changes championed by then-state Sen. Linda Smith were principally marketed around new contribution limits to candidates and parties. Well, Richard Berman would have us believe that I-134 was a "voter mandate" specifically to rein in union political influence.

The truth is, among the dozens of clauses in I-134, was one that aimed to force unions to get annual written authorization from all of their members to spend any portion of their dues on politics. But the language was so poorly written that, it didn't accomplish the right-wing's goal of defunding unions politically.

Berman's op-ed recycles many of the arguments of the failed "Paycheck Protection" campaign of the 1990s, dubbed by unions as "Paycheck Deception."  In more than 30 states and in Congress, a coordinated effort -- spearheaded by Jack Abramoff pal and George Bush confidante Grover Norquist (he of drown-government-in-a-bathtub fame) -- was made to pass Paycheck Deception laws that restricted union political activity, but tightened up the I-134 language to make sure it succeeded in silencing unions. Those laws and initiatives were universally rejected by legislators and voters -- most prominently with the failure of California's Proposition 226 in 1998. In Nevada, it was ruled an unconstitutional restriction on freedom of speech.

Well, apparently there's still some good anonymous money to be made advocating to shut those damn unions up.  Enter Dick Berman.

Berman suggests that there's no way for union members to avoid having their "compulsory dues" (the preferred phrase of all the best right-to-work framers) spent in support political candidates they don't personally like. Of course, as is the case with just about everything that spews from Berman's mouth and pen, that's not true. 

All union members in this country have the right to withdraw and pay a representation fee so that none of their dues are spent on politics. 

But more importantly, they have the right -- and responsibility -- to participate in their union's political process. If you don't like the candidates your union supports, you can get involved and get your co-workers and fellow union members to change your union's priorities and endorsements. In that way, unions are unique among most other politically active groups -- they have a democratic process to determine how political money is spent, and everyone has a right to participate.

Corporations have no such democratic process. They pump FAR more money into political campaigns without ever seeking the input or permission of shareholders, many of whom don't support the candidates the corporation's executives support. So far in 2006, corporations have pumped about $817 million into this fall's elections, and are outspending unions by more than a 17-to-1 margin.  Berman argues that rank-and-file members need to be protected from the "union bosses" they elected, but he'll never make the same argument on behalf of shareholders because the corporations are his clients.

The WEA expects to prevail when the U.S. Supreme Court hears the EFF appeal being pursued by Republican Attorney General Rob McKenna. 

Regardless of the outcome, the Washington State Labor Council and the rest of organized labor will not be deterred by the anonymously funded attempts by corporations and right-wing special interests to silence the voice of working people. We will continue to advocate for the interests of our members and for working people, in general.

And as long as there's money to be made, the likes of Richard Berman and "think tanks" like the Evergreen Freedom Foundation will continue to harass unions in court, in legislatures, and in newspapers.