Lawmakers Rake in $120k Since Voting Against Pension Reform
Wednesday, August 01, 2012
Sixteen local lawmakers who voted against the state’s landmark pension reform bill have received more than $120,000 in campaign contributions from union political action committees (PACs) since last November, according to a GoLocalProv review of campaign finance reports.
The 17th nay vote, Senator John Tassoni, is not running for re-election.
State Rep. Roberto DaSilva, who is challenging Senate Finance chairman Daniel DaPonte in a Democratic primary this fall, is second on the list, with $11,750. Representative Scott Guthrie, a retired firefighter, has received $11,540.
“It’s not surprising that unions PACs are supporting legislators that opposed pension reform,” said Dr. Kay Israel, professor of political communication at Rhode Island College. “Given the climate that Wisconsin has exemplified, unions see themselves in a major battle to retain some control over their contractual benefits and to demonstrate their viability to present and potential members.”
Lawmakers in Re-Election Battles
Israel said union PAC donations are typically given to either ensure the victory of a known supporter or to defeat a vulnerable opponent. He called the $120,000 already contributed a figure that can be viewed as a goal line stand to “minimize the likelihood of less influence and maximize the voicing of their positions in the next legislature.”
In DaSilva’s case, the contributions are being used to pick off DaPonte, who was credited with leading the way to help get pension reform passed in the Senate last fall. DaSilva likely would have had a safe path to re-election in the House, but he had also fallen out of favor with Speaker Gordon Fox’s leadership team.
He’s not the only one.
Longtime State Rep. Rene Menard, who has received $8,750 from union PACs since last fall, is facing a challenge from Cumberland Council member Mia Ackerman, who has the support of House leadership and more than $28,000 in her campaign account.
Rep. Spencer Dickinson, who was unhappy with changes made during redistricting early this fall, has a primary opponent in Kathleen Fogarty and a credible Republican opponent in James Haldeman, who GOP chairman Mark Zaccaria has called “probably the top prospect among all challengers to pick up a House seat.” Dickinson has received $7,465 from union PACs since voting against pension reform last year.
While the money is important, Israel said the real strength of labor unions is their ability to get out the vote. With an election that may see a drop in turnout –particularly in the Democratic primary— a strong ground game could be the deciding factor in some races.
“One has to ask, why unions would opt to donate to those who opposed their position,” Israel said. “Shouldn’t those who advocated their support gain from it?”
EngageRI May Fight Back
But the unions aren’t the only ones expected to flex their muscles when it comes to political contributions this fall.
General Treasurer Gina Raimondo, the key architect to the pension reform bill and a likely candidate for Governor in 2014, has said she will support candidates who voted in favor of the law, although that hasn’t happened yet.
Raimondo raked in over $258,000 in the second quarter that ended on June 30, but only contributed $100 to one lawmaker – State Senator Hanna Gallo.
EngageRI, the pro-reform group that spent over $600,000 helping to get Raimondo’s bill passed last year, has a PAC that has contributed $13,000 to mostly House and Senate leadership as well as Raimondo, Providence Mayor Angel Taveras and the House Republican Leadership PAC.
Rhode Island Statewide Coalition executive director Donna Perry, who also advocated for pension overhaul last fall, said the bill continues to be viewed by public employee union leadership as the “single greatest assault on their contracts regardless of the fact that it was a fiscally collapsing system and they seem intent on holding people accountable for the bill’s success.”
“If ever there was a vivid example of the direct connection between union financial muscle and a major legislative vote, it’s this,” Perry said. “When you are casting a vote that is so significantly against the best interests of the RI taxpayer and so clearly aimed at appeasing a powerful interest, and you end up in the distinct minority with that vote, I suppose it’s not a surprise that rewards are doled out after the fact.”
Bought and Paid For
Perry said it is not surprising to see union PACs contributing money to those who voted against the bill.
She said she expects even more money to be poured into targeted races, particularly against high-profile candidates who helped the pension bill earn passage.
But while the unions aren’t exclusively supporting candidates who voted against the reform bill (House Finance chairman Helio Melo, for example, has received support), Rhode Island Tea Party president Susan Wynne said she expects to see plenty of union money “spent on attack ads, fighting back to ensure their self-preservation” this election season.
“This issue evokes a strong suggestion that these votes were bought and paid for,” she said. “And it is widely known that for far too long they have had an upper hand in influencing how a legislator votes.”
Dan McGowan can be reached at dmcgowan@golocalprov.com. Follow him on Twitter: @danmcgowan.
Enjoy this post? Share it with others.
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Comments:
Chris MacWilliams
8:38am on Wednesday, August 01, 2012
Give union members a little credit. They don't need their leaders to tell them how to vote. Union members are very much aware that our state is bankrupt. The gross incompetence of our General Assembly put us there.
Now Union Leaders are asking their members to put those same people back office. Go figure????
Gary Arnold
9:33am on Wednesday, August 01, 2012
A vote against each person on the list in this article is a MUST if RI is ever to have a chance to really change to the better.
tom brady
9:37am on Wednesday, August 01, 2012
.08%
Jonathan Jacobs
10:23am on Wednesday, August 01, 2012
So, are we demonizing all politicians who have accepted political contributions from organizations hoping to further their own agendas, or just those covered by collective bargaining aggreements? I just want to be clear as to whom the finger pointing should be directed in this particular witch hunt.
I was under the impression that many politicians depended on the contributions of PACs in order to bolster their war chests durung times of election and re-election. I was also under the impressionthat there needed be no disclosure of the source of these funds. Perhaps a deeper look into the wellspring of from where funding actually flows for each candidate should be on deck, and not just the relatively small percentage that comes from those with collective bargaining agreements.
When it comes to pensions for Rhode Island State Employees, the case remains complicated. The State signed a statute that guaranteed certain lifelong safety nets for its employees. Did the system become vastly over comlicated? Yes. Did those in charge of managing the funds find themselves remarkably short on their estimates following the economic collapse? Yes. While the CEOs of the major financial instutions that took the stocks and bonds and bundled them into futures and derivitives walked away with golden parachutes, those who had statutes protecting their retirements were left with considerably reduced levels of income for themselves and their families going into retirement.
So, naturally, they sought the help of those in policy making positions to help them do what they believed was right for themselves, their families and the preservation of the integrity of the State of RI in honoring the statutes it promised to its workers.
As do many private sector organizations who have the means by which to contribute far larger PAC donations to candidates anonymously via "Citizens United".
Unions formed the backbone of the middle class and still serve a purpose when figting for a decent living wage and fair work practices. A few bad apples have given a bad reputation to organizations that have fought to prevent the exploitation and disenfranchisement of hard working class Rhode Islanders. But, all in all, unions - especially those representing public sector employees - are a valid piece of the employment rights and political spectrum as a whole. If we are going to look deeply into where and how much funding is given to political candidates, let's look at the whole picture. I'm sure this will show that the amount of money contributed to other candidates in the upcoming race for Senate and House has come from large and powerful private sector organizations with very specific agendas of their own.
But don't simply demonize collective bargaining because it is a popular topic to bolster the reputation of those candidates who have chosen private sector interests over public sector interests.
Harry Staleyu
10:30am on Wednesday, August 01, 2012
What more evidence of union highhandedness and control is needed. Every person on this list is compromised by accepting these funds. It is simply the latest verification of the fact that both the union and their legislative cronies are walking hand-in-hand in plain view because they no longer fear the kickback of an informed and active electorate. That is the shame of Rhode Island.
Jonathan Jacobs
11:57am on Wednesday, August 01, 2012
Sixty to eighty percent of any elected official's time in an election cycle is devoted to fundraising. Seeking contributions from special interest groups is part of the job. Why is it cronyism when it is union contributions but not when it is private sector industry money?
Dan McGowan
12:11pm on Wednesday, August 01, 2012
Jonathan,
That's a totally fair and accurate point. I've written in the past about the amount spent on lobbyists (http://www.golocalprov.com/news/state-spenders/) and you'll notice that very few unions are listed.
I do think it will be interesting to monitor these 16 elected officials, however. They voted against the a major piece of legislation that the overwhelming majority of their colleagues supported. I'm interesting in seeing how many can survive.
If you had to predict, how many do you think will win? I'd say 14/16
Scott Dickerson
12:13pm on Wednesday, August 01, 2012
Johnathan Jacobs, the unions have controlled hack Democrat politicians in RI for decades! Notice there are no Republicans on the list. So the Democrats who have had control voted for everything the unions wanted due to the donations when the taxpayers clearly couldn't afford it. Perhaps if there was some balance in the Statehouse even a decade ago the pension issue would have been solved so that only new individuals would be effected and all promises would be kept, when the state had the money. It is even alarming that some union officials are elected officials who not only take the money but clearly have more of an influence on union matters that cost us money. I will end with the following:
A North Providence state senator threatened police officers with legislative retribution and tried to pull strings to get Senate Majority Leader Dominick J. Ruggerio off the hook after Ruggerio was pulled over and later charged with drunken driving, according to a Barrington police report released after The Providence Journal filed an Open Records Request.
In a roadside confrontation, Frank A. Ciccone III told Patrolmen Michael J. Gregorzek and Walter C. Larson in Barrington, "You think you got pension problems now, wait 'til this [expletive] is all done. This guy voted against you the last time, it ain't gonna get any better now," according to Gregorzek's report.
Maybe you will get it now?
pearl fanch
12:36pm on Wednesday, August 01, 2012
Unions BUY politicians (Democrats). Democrats get elected.
Democrats then "negociate" contracts with unions, that put an extreme burden on the taxpayer.
The only people not recognizing this, are the UNIONS!!!!!
This article reinforces this theory. RI will NEVER change. The past 70+ years tells us that.
Donna C
12:55pm on Wednesday, August 01, 2012
Lima does not even have a challenger. Guess that 8 grand goes into her already full war chest. Unions buy and pay for the GA...nothing new here.
Dan McGowan
1:15pm on Wednesday, August 01, 2012
Donna, I believe there are a few that don't have a challenger. Carnevale, Lima, Johnston and Messier.
Dan
dmcgowan@golocalprov.com
Donna C
1:27pm on Wednesday, August 01, 2012
Thanks Dan. That makes it even more interesting!! I guess they can help other candidates if they so choose.
Al Moncrief
1:53pm on Wednesday, August 01, 2012
RAIMONDO'S PENSION REFORM WAS RETROACTIVE. IT TOOK CONTRACTED, ACCRUED PENSION COLA BENEFITS AND WILL ULTIMATELY BE STRUCK DOWN. HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO SUPPORT A WOMAN WHO PLACES HER POLITICAL CAREER ABOVE THE RULE OF LAW? ASK YOURSELF THAT QUESTION AND LEARN YOUR TRUE CHARACTER.
PROOF THAT COLORADO’S GOVERNMENT LIES: COLORADO PERA’S ATTEMPT TO TAKE CONTRACTED RETIREE BENEFITS.
When I was young I held the belief that public service in the United States is honorable, that the United States of America was exceptional in the world, that governments in the United States, while flawed, deserved the respect of citizens.
Now that I am old, I see that I was naive . . . that governmental entities in the United States will intentionally deceive to achieve their goals, and that over two centuries our soldiers have died for a country that will countenance, and even celebrate, base behavior on the part of its public sector instrumentalities. It saddens me, but if this state of affairs persists in the United States . . . Honor is dead.
Some background . . .
You may know that an entity of Colorado state government, Colorado PERA, is attempting to breach its public pension contracts with its retirees. Colorado PERA is attempting a retroactive taking, a “clawback” of accrued, fully-vested pension benefits that were earned by retired PERA members over decades.
Colorado PERA public pension benefits include a “base benefit” that is set at retirement and a “COLA benefit” that adjusts pensions annually to compensate for inflation. The “base benefit” and the “COLA benefit” are set forth in Colorado statutes with identical force of law and legal status.
In its attempt to breach retiree contracts Colorado PERA has created a contrivance. The contrivance that Colorado PERA is using is that somehow the “base benefit” is a contractual obligation, but the “COLA benefit” is not a contractual obligation, in spite of the fact that both pension benefits are set forth in law in an identical manner.
What this boils down to is attempted, unabashed, theft by government.
Whether or not Colorado PERA’s attempt to take fully-vested public pension benefits from PERA retirees is ultimately successful in the courts, one fact has been incontrovertibly established . . . Colorado PERA, as an instrumentality of the State of Colorado, is an organization that will lie to achieve its policy goals.
This is a sad fact for the many employees of Colorado PERA, for the trustees that have served on the Colorado PERA Board of Trustees over 80 years, and for the thousands of PERA members and retirees.
And now, the proof of the deceit . . .
Colorado PERA has told us, in writing, that the PERA COLA benefit IS a contractual obligation of PERA . . . and then, after initiating their attempt to breach contracts, Colorado PERA has told us, in writing, that the PERA COLA benefit IS NOT a contractual obligation of PERA. Both of these statements cannot be true.
Colorado PERA in a written document, to the Colorado General Assembly’s Joint Budget Committee on December 16, 2009 states that the PERA COLA benefit IS a contractual obligation of PERA:
“The General Assembly cannot decrease the COLA (absent actuarial necessity) because it is part of the contractual obligations that accrue under a pension plan protected under the Colorado Constitution Article II, Section 11 and the United States Constitution Article 1, Section 10 for vested contractual rights.”
Link:
http://www.kentlambert.com/Files/PERA_JBC_Hearing_Responses-12-16-2009_Final.pdf
Colorado PERA on page 23 of its May 6, 2011 “Reply Brief” in the pension case Justus v. State states that the PERA COLA benefit IS NOT a contractual obligation of PERA:
“Plaintiffs seek to create a contract right that has never existed—an unchangeable COLA for life triggered (inconsistently) by either the date of their retirement or ‘full vesting.’”
Link:
http://saveperacola.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/2011-05-06-pera-defendants_-reply-in-support-of-summary-judgment.pdf
That is simply unbelievable.
In one document PERA writes "the contract right has never existed." In the other they write that the COLA benefit is a contractual obligation protected under the Colorado and US constitutions.
When PERA writes that they need "actuarial necessity" to take the COLA benefit, they are not denying that it is a contractual obligation, in fact, it is an admission of the contractual nature of the COLA benefit.
For further information regarding Colorado PERA’s attempt to take fully-vested pension benefits from retirees visit saveperacola.com or Friend Save Pera Cola on Facebook.
Jonathan Jacobs
2:05pm on Wednesday, August 01, 2012
I'm not quite sure what the legal issues of a certain individual caught in a criminal act have to do with union contributions or pension reform on a state level. It is very interesting muckraking, though.
If the person was involved in pension threatening by someone on a state level that has nothing whatsoever to do with pensions on a municipal level. The Barrington (or any) police force other than the State Police are municipal agencies and collect municipal pensions.
I am curious to know from where the current funding for Senator DaPonte's re-election campaign comes. Granted, he is a democrat as well. However he was key in the pension reform act for state employees. Furthermore, if state employees or other collective barganing organizations chose to endorse and offer campaign funding support to Ms. Raimondo's potential future run at gubernatorial office, should she accept? Would she accept?
Or perhaps RI should return to the string of Republican Governors that systematically reduced the State's workforce by a larger percentage than in any other state in the union, thereby effectively reducing the influence of collective bargaining agreement units statewide and (in part) resulting in the current fiscal catastrophe we see here today?
And, by the way, for those who wish to address me directly, please spell my name correctly. It's right at the top of the page.
Thank you.
David Lodge
3:37pm on Wednesday, August 01, 2012
It is to be entirely expected that the unions would provide financial support to those who support them. What I think is wrong about it is that unions, corporations, and other non-political groups shouldn't be allowed to financially support candidates at all. That is something that should be reserved for registered voters. If you aren't eligible to vote for a candidate you shouldn't be able to contribute. I don't want the candidates in my district owing anything to outside of my district.
Paul Marshall
4:14pm on Wednesday, August 01, 2012
Since the DEMOCrats took over control of the state legislature, we've gone from FIRST to WORST in the nation economically. Check it out.
So many industries got their start, or a BIG boost from R.I. From shipping to aircraft manufacturing.
Over the last 75 years, history shows, our economy has collapsed. EVEN the Illegal Aliens are leaving. The jobs are gone and so has our economy.
The gamers have taken over. Everyone is for sale-as this above chart CLEARLY illustrates. Snow-birds, double-dippers, unindicted co-conspirators, "the man downtown", the "Do-you-know-who-I-am" types...
Lower Spending and Cut Taxes.
Stop voting democrat!
Jonathan Jacobs
10:43pm on Wednesday, August 01, 2012
Wasn't it Republican Governor, Carcieri that initially pushed and brokered the 38 Studios deal after hey were given millions upon millions in financial incentives? Apparently, despite the mechanical problems in the above commenter's caps-lock key, the gamers have not taken over. In fact, it was literally the gamers who failed and went belly up, costing the state taxpayers millions of dollars in non-recoverable tax incentives.
Donna C
11:14pm on Wednesday, August 01, 2012
Yes, Jonathan...a Repub Gov did all the damage all by himself without any help from the Speaker, Senate Prez or any other sneaky dem pol. You got it!
Scott Dickerson
7:58am on Thursday, August 02, 2012
Isn't really obvious what side of the fence Jonathan Jacobs is on? Clearly a union leader. Who else would blame Governor Carcieri for 38 studios? Yes the Governor was part of the problem, but the DEMOCRAT controlled legislature and Gordon Fox were at the front of the line. Ya know Jacob, the Democrats that your unions have in their pocket. The Governor in the state of RI is one of the weakest positions in the country. Here the Speaker of the House rules, second only to the President of the Senate! Yes, all democrats, for years! So when you blame all the ills of RI on a former Republican Governor, it is merely a union tactic because your back is up against the wall. You have failed your members with your cronyism and corruption! I expose you for all of RI to see!
Anne Jacobs
4:57pm on Thursday, August 02, 2012
xx