Blog backs review your thoughtful and provocative online comments, amplify points, answer questions, correct our mistakes and humbly accept your warranted criticism.
Some blog users have taken issue with our series of posts on what unions have spent on political activities in October. Here are some of the more critical comments:
Oct. 27 CCPOA independent spending targets Meg Whitman
How about the requests to state some noteworthy campaign contributions and independent expenditures by BIG BUSINESS Jon? That was asked also! How about printing the "rest of the story"?
Only morons believe the hype the Bee puts out..Spend more time on websites like factcheck.org and politico.com for real news. ... You know this site is biased against unions...
I could not agree more. Union political contributions are a drop in the ocean in comparison to what big corporations are spending to influence elections. How about shedding some light on that Jon?
We particularly liked this comment, not necessarily for the cogent and precise nature of the criticism, but for the nom de plume of the writer, "NotnOrtizFan":
As usual the Bee continues to smear the unions. Where is the web address to see how much Bee workers earn per year? Where is the infomation (sic) for private business candidate contributions?
There is no rest of the story. You are reading the Bee.
Oct. 28 Engineers' union political spending tops $1 million this month
Well Jon, after continued attempts to get you to balance the reporting and give us something on the "rest of the story" about business and wealthy peoples (sic) donations, it appears your statement that, "In response to State Worker blog user requests, we're continuing to post some of the more noteworthy recent campaign contributions and independent expenditures by state employee unions as we enter the final days of the 2010 election." is based on a very selective agenda to justify YOUR motive. YOU suck!
It's interesting that some comments imply or outright criticize posting publicly available numbers as a "smear" on the unions. We see such expenditures as a reality, the price of relevance in California state politics.
We don't view putting the union info up as unfair in the absence of "balancing" it with non-union contributions. The numbers have significance on their own, particularly for this blog's niche readers who want to know how their representatives are spending money -- nearly all of it from member dues and fair share fees.
Which candidates and causes are unions supporting? Which are they opposing? How much are they spending and to what effect for members? Are the unions betting on winners or losers? What does the spending say about the direction of the union?
If this blog covered the oil industry, we'd post Chevron's political spending. If it focused on medical care providers, we'd post the contributions of Kaiser Permanente.
If you want to see what other interests spend on political campaigns and independent expenditures, we suggest OpenSecrets.org or you can comb through the list of Committees, Parties, Major Donors and Slate Mailers on the California Secretary of State's website.
The Author
About Comments
Reader comments on Sacbee.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Sacramento Bee. If you see an objectionable comment, click the "report abuse" button below it. We will delete comments containing inappropriate links, obscenities, hate speech, and personal attacks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. See more about comments here.