Difference between Union campaign contribution and Corporate campaign contribution?

Both are intended to buy influence and gain favorable rules and or legislation in return. This may or not be in the peoples best interest. We rely on our representatives to represent the peoples interests, or the States interest first and not the interest of any specific lobby. In my opinion it works both ways politicians extort campaign contributions for giving specific favors to the contributor. If politicians were ethical they would not ask for contributions and promise any loyalty in return.

If there was a way to make all contributions by special groups anonymous to the politicians they contribute to there would not be the chance that there was a quid pro quo arrangement. I have not heard of that type of proposal before. But other than that we are left with disclosure as the only way to judge if such a quid pro quo might have happened. It is a shame our politicians cannot all be ethical and moral first. But that's always been the case that politicians have been corrupt or at a minimum corruptible.

My best idea for controlling the problem of influence is for the government to do it's constitutionally limited role of protecting the rights of the people and not getting into the tax and regulating game of give away benefits by legislation. In other words keep government small and less influential.

Neither can donate directly to any political candidate as a union or as a corporation. Now the individuals within the union can vote and have a lump some donated directly but it comes as a lump sum from a group of union members, not from the union directly. Same would apply to a corporation. What changed recently with the Citizens United case was that it is now allowed for unions (as a separate entity from it's members) and corporations (as a separate entity from it's employees) to donate to political campaigns but again not directly to the candidate but by paying for advertising (radio, TV, newspaper, etc) for candidates of their choice. And by the Supreme Court ruling they are not limited to any dollar amount in donations of this manner. The main difference in this regard is that corporations have at least 20 times the money to spend on such campaign strategies as do even the most powerful unions.

Corporation are not forcing their employees to contribute...Corporations are not forcing the public to purchase their product or service with thuggery.

Unions in the beginning were built with thuggery...either do as we say or pay the consequences for non-participation...legalized extortion.

Nothing has changed in all this time, other then the payment to the Union Bosses became greater, the punishments can be the same or even worse.

Thuggery has no business in Politics...period! When will the people realize and everyone stand up against the thuggery and the extortion.

If you want a job you got pay the Union their cut...the state its cut and the Feds their cut...what is left for the wage earner to live on...?

extortion allow under the current rules of Unions is still extortion when are people going to wake up to this fact...either pay up or you lose everything.....! is that truly a way to live? No.

The problem with Union is Union corruption, I don't have a problem with collective bargaining, in fact collective bargaining is the reason that wage earners get decent pay, and benefits, even at non-union companies. We should attack the corruption rather than turn on Unions and Collective bargaining per se. With that said, the recent landmark Supreme court ruling in: Citizen's United v Federal Elections committee, was one of the worst tragedies for democracy in USA history. Citizen's United is a misnomer for corporations united against citizens. The case allows unlimited corporate donation to political campaigns. I support campaign reform, and to get special interests out of politics, accept to make documented, and transparent communications, presentations, and information. Would like to see Unions and Corporate interests lose their influence over politicians. Both are Special Interest influence and make huge campaign contributions, and that influence does not strengthen democracy it weakens our collective interests as USA citizens.

The amount of $$$ is different. Corporations have more money to buy our politicians.

Corporations are self serving and the bottom line is profit for the few.

Unions contribute to the politicians that will work for the workers.

it is simple really, the difference between a campaign contribution and a bribe, bribes are more concrete. polliticians are more likely to honor a bribe, because if they dont, then that would be revealed that they took a bribe. Bribes are also considered immorale because they thing the politician is going to do, because of that bribe, usualy would only benifit the person who bribed them, and discredit everybody else. Also they tend to be more money than $1

The only difference is that Corporations donate to both sides to hedge their bets, while Unions are primarily Democrat supporters. They are both extreme detriments to the American system who have power and leverage far greater than the average citizen, corrupting every politician they can possibly pay off.

Public Employee union campaign contributions arise from tax dollars - as public employees have a % of their tax payer funded checks -confiscated - and handed to the DNC

The Union contribute to the democrats even if members of the rank and file object.

About 98% of union campaign contributions go to the Democrat, Progressive, Socialist, Marxist Party, while Corporate campaign donations are more evenly split.

What do you think?