Violating 501(c)(3) status

[Chisoxfn]

Personally I say who gives a rats ass about someone trying to spread their personal opinion. Whats the difference between a church recommending a politican to its public and a teacher spewing out their s*** without other students being able to say something.

 

Hell, whats the difference between someone outside telling you to end Bush's s*** or anything else. Its all freedom of speach. I disagree when a person of power tries to push its agenda on others, but still, to a point it happens and it happens from all sides. I don't wnat to hear this horses*** that both sides don't try to pull their base and they'll do whatever way possible to get it done.

 

Christ, how come when I make a post, I'll almost always knock something I disagree with on the republican side (even though I'm a republican) but I'll also add some good points. Usualy I try to say things from both sides and I'll say in my opinion this outways the bad.

 

It seems like some people think the republican party are these "evil doers" persay. Folks, I got a news flash, politicians have agendas and if they didn't they wouldn't be getting elected. They have to sell out because they need campaign funds to an extent and they have to do things for their voting base. Its the way a two party system works and it will continue to work that way until people get all special interest groups the hell out of politicans pockets.

 

Since I don't see that cahnging, if people want to make a difference about it, go out and vote and spew out tons and tons of protests saying you want to change the way campaigns are financed and what not. I'm just sick of hearing or at least it seems Its that way all this crap that oooh the republicans are doing this or oooh look at those cheating crooks or whatever. It seems like their so many attacks, its freaking ridiculous.

 

I've long said I wish their was a real republican in office, but I think the libertarian candidate is very weak as well. We all know my stance on Kerry, but in this election its whatever the lesser of the evil is I guess.

 

But what the hell is wrong with a party trying to get their base motivated when both parties in fact do it

[Chisoxfn]

I should add, I'm not trying to attack teachers, a good teacher is one of the most important things in a childs life. Unfortunately it seems with the not so fare pay they get, its getting harder and harder to find good teachers, at least in my high school (which was supposedly a good one).

[baggio202]

Personally I say who gives a rats ass about someone trying to spread their personal opinion.  Whats the difference between a church recommending a politican to its public and a teacher spewing out their s*** without other students being able to say something.

 

Hell, whats the difference between someone outside telling you to end Bush's s*** or anything else.  Its all freedom of speach.  I disagree when a person of power tries to push its agenda on others, but still, to a point it happens and it happens from all sides.  I don't wnat to hear this horses*** that both sides don't try to pull their base and they'll do whatever way possible to get it done.

 

Christ, how come when I make a post, I'll almost always knock something I disagree with on the republican side (even though I'm a republican) but I'll also add some good points.  Usualy I try to say things from both sides and I'll say in my opinion this outways the bad.

 

It seems like some people think the republican party are these "evil doers" persay.  Folks, I got a news flash, politicians have agendas and if they didn't they wouldn't be getting elected.  They have to sell out because they need campaign funds to an extent and they have to do things for their voting base.  Its the way a two party system works and it will continue to work that way until people get all special interest groups the hell out of politicans pockets. 

 

Since I don't see that cahnging, if people want to make a difference about it, go out and vote and spew out tons and tons of protests saying you want to change the way campaigns are financed and what not.  I'm just sick of hearing or at least it seems Its that way all this crap that oooh the republicans are doing this or oooh look at those cheating crooks or whatever.  It seems like their so many attacks, its freaking ridiculous. 

 

I've long said I wish their was a real republican in office, but I think the libertarian candidate is very weak as well.  We all know my stance on Kerry, but in this election its whatever the lesser of the evil is I guess.

 

But what the hell is wrong with a party trying to get their base motivated when both parties in fact do it 

cool rant..alot of good points

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Personally I say who gives a rats ass about someone trying to spread their personal opinion.  Whats the difference between a church recommending a politican to its public and a teacher spewing out their s*** without other students being able to say something.

 

Hell, whats the difference between someone outside telling you to end Bush's s*** or anything else.  Its all freedom of speach.  I disagree when a person of power tries to push its agenda on others, but still, to a point it happens and it happens from all sides.  I don't wnat to hear this horses*** that both sides don't try to pull their base and they'll do whatever way possible to get it done.

 

Christ, how come when I make a post, I'll almost always knock something I disagree with on the republican side (even though I'm a republican) but I'll also add some good points.  Usualy I try to say things from both sides and I'll say in my opinion this outways the bad.

 

It seems like some people think the republican party are these "evil doers" persay.  Folks, I got a news flash, politicians have agendas and if they didn't they wouldn't be getting elected.  They have to sell out because they need campaign funds to an extent and they have to do things for their voting base.  Its the way a two party system works and it will continue to work that way until people get all special interest groups the hell out of politicans pockets. 

 

Since I don't see that changing, if people want to make a difference about it, go out and vote and spew out tons and tons of protests saying you want to change the way campaigns are financed and what not.  I'm just sick of hearing or at least it seems Its that way all this crap that oooh the republicans are doing this or oooh look at those cheating crooks or whatever.  It seems like their so many attacks, its freaking ridiculous. 

 

I've long said I wish their was a real republican in office, but I think the libertarian candidate is very weak as well.  We all know my stance on Kerry, but in this election its whatever the lesser of the evil is I guess.

 

But what the hell is wrong with a party trying to get their base motivated when both parties in fact do it 

The difference is that churches have tax exempt status which keeps them from overtly getting involved in politics. That's the caveat. They are more than welcome to get involved in politics, but give up the non-partisan tax exempt status.

 

As Michael Moore said when he spoke at our campus before Bowling for Columbine came out on his "Stupid White Men..." book tour:

The Democrats say one thing like "Save the Environment!" and then turn around and take shady backroom deals to screw over the environment.  The Republicans just give the assholes an office in the West Wing.

 

Both parties are filled with asshats that make me wanna stick my head in an oven

[1549]

Both parties are filled with asshats that make me wanna stick my head in an oven

 

btw, thanks for the link Apu. Nothing better than a sight that is open to both sides of the spectrum.

[southsider2k5]

So I guess it is OK when the other side engages in illegal fundraising, as long as a church isn't involved? I guess getting funds during a senate campaign from a Chinese forgien national is OK? Espesially when you get that same national an audience before the SEC to try to get him company listed on the NYSE. But it is all all right when you give the money back after getting caught.

 

Or how about groups like moveon.org who are doing this exact samething illegally in violation of campaign donation laws?

 

But I guess it is only wrong when it happens in a church

 

I go back to Apu's quote...

[cwsox]

But I guess it is only wrong when it happens in a church

 

yes it matters

 

note the thread title: 501C3 in the IRS code

 

I am talking about federal statutes

 

why is that so hard to understand

 

I as a pastor can on my own time make any partisan statement I want

 

BUT IF the legally incorporporated organization that UNDER FEDERAL CODE gets nonprofit status which REQUIRES under federal code that said organization be non paritsan

 

then to break that law is a crime, a criminal offense

 

and that should not be too hard ever for some to figure out no matter how "what me partsan" you want to spin it

 

if I, the resident agent of a non profit under 501 C3 which I am on my on time, under my own name, using my own resources which are privately mine, work for the candidates or party of my choice, that is legal -- hence the Rev Pat Rovertson and the Rev Jess Jackson also do the same

 

if I send my church directory - the membership of the tax exempt 501 C 3 corporation - to a partisan political organization - then the law is broken

 

if I invite a candidate to speak to my congregation because I have invited every candidate in that race and it is part of a general "we are citizens of this nation and get out and vote" campaign that is legal - if I host a party in the church or even the tax exempt parsonage or school or hospital or whatever for a candidate, that is illegal under federal code - the church cannot endorse a candidate

 

this is not brain science, it is a matter of law and the way some here dismiss breaking the law with has long since ceased to be amusing -

 

this type of thing has never been done before but your "both sides do it" is simply untrue because this has not been done before as I pointed out for the blindly partisan spin meisters that no candidate for any party in history has done this before - this is a new thing -

 

now a G W Bush can go to Bob Jones University as he did in the SC 2000 primary and be endorsed by the folks there because last I knew, Bob Jones was not a 501 C 3 and thus was not violating federal law -

 

an Al Gore and G W Bush can speak at Notre Dame and not be endorsed as part of 501 C 3 Notre Dame offering non partisan educational opportuntiies to their students, as they did in 2000

 

to do the things as asked for in this 2004 Bush-Cheney letter is to break the law under federal code, to break IRS regulations which churches voluntarily ask for preferential tax treatment under - and for those who substitue sarcasm for thinking go ahead but damn it is unimpressive

 

and by the way moveon.org is NOT a federal 501 C 3 tax exempt orgainization because - get this - it is not a church, it is a partisan organization - ok - so moveon.org can say what it wants just as the political arm of the NRA or the AMA or the ABA or the NEA can, just as the Republican and Democratic parties can - they are not churches and they are not regulated under 501 C3 and they are not tax exempt and your contributions to their PACs are not tax deductable as your contributions to your church are

 

so to say

Or how about groups like moveon.org who are doing this exact samething illegally in violation of campaign donation laws?

is pretty damn silly since moveon is not a 501 C3, moveon has not broken any law or asked anyone to break any law, moveon is not a church (moveon is NOT a church, is that incomprehensible?) and moveon has never done "this exact same thing" since they have never asked for membership lists of 501 C3s nor has it asked 501 C 3s to host partisan events, moveon has always required its events to be at public facilities, business establishments, not at 591 C3s - nor has the NRA or the AMA or the ABA nor the NEA nor the Republican and Democratic parties - that is why this letter from the Bush Cheney campaign is newsworthy because it a new form of violating federal statutue that has - again - never been done before

 

so I will await an expert discussion on how under federal tax codes someone can equate a partisan organization that it not a church and is not under 501 C 3 status with a church that is and has sworn under oath, under penalties of perjury, that it will be non partisan to get the 501 C 3 status

 

yes it is wrong when a church does it - if that church has 501 C 3 status - it is not only wrong, it is blatently illegal

[southsider2k5]

this is not brain science, it is a matter of law and the way some here dismiss breaking the law with    has long since ceased to be amusing -

You are dead on right here. And I await the day that John Kerry gets procecuted for his admitted war crimes, and for taking campaign money from Chinese nationals during his 1996 campaign.

 

I also await indictments against the democratic party for working in conjunction with supposed apolitical organizations inviolation of campaign contributions laws.

 

And when I see those threads I may give somemore credence to obvious, eyes closed, parisian, poop flinging.

[FlaSoxxJim]

And when I see those threads I may give somemore credence to obvious, eyes closed, parisian, poop flinging.

Do the Parisian's know their poop is being flung? Or are they the ones doing the poop flinging?

 

OK, back to the fighting.

[cwsox]

And when I see those threads I may give somemore credence to obvious, eyes closed, parisian, poop flinging.

typical: fact is stated, so: shift the subject, do not respond to the fact at hand.

 

When you kill me, at your trial: "but other people kill people so its all ok, both sides do it!"

 

getting away from the postings of the wild eyed, I might note that if Kerry is guilty of what you charge, under about 3 years of Nixon after Kerry's return from Nam, where we know Nixon discussed and wanted to get Kerry, through 2 years of Ford, 8 years of Reagan, 4 of Bush 1, and 3 of Bush 2, I would suppose if any actual crimes were commited, 20 years of Republican failure to act means either the Republicans cannot be trusted to act or there are no crimes to be prosecuted for.

 

as for the

obvious, eyes closed, parisian, poop flinging.

you saying you didn't give creedence to your own stuff - or is it French stuff?

 

you equate partisan moveon with churches under 501 C3 and when that equation is shown false, you attack my threads with the partisan s*** that is so spin that the bobbleheads in my room are getting dizzy from all that spin.

 

I love you ss2k4 and I prefer to keep it that way. Good night and God bless!

[kapkomet]

Can you EVER point out anything that the Democratic party does wrong? EVER? That's more the point here.

 

My point, OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER again, is that BOTH parties screw up and break laws - or at least get as gray as can be to justify their end means, and that is POWER. So why pick THIS ONE IRS code and beat the snot out of it and say that this is over the top? Frankly, there's probably more damaging stuff out there then this...

 

I don't feel like searching for it but I can certainly find links to Kerry's campaign accepting illegal funds. I can certainly find all sorts of stuff that is shady and/or illegal from the Gore campaign.

 

In this specific IRS code, yea, Bush/Cheney is doing some pretty crazy stuff. WRONG. It's BS. Let's throw the idoits in jail. Does that make you feel better?Thank you, cw, for being our hero and pointing it out. Read it again... YES, BUSH/CHENEY ARE WRONG. See? I can say that because I'm not on some political witchhunt.

 

BUT WHAT ABOUT ALL THE OTHER STUFF THAT DOESN'T GET REPORTED THAT THE DEMS ARE DOING?

 

Oh, I forgot. That doesn't agree with what political agendas are. Got it. Thanks, have a nice day.

 

By the way, honestly, I don't care. The only part I care about is to simply point out that there are ALWAYS two sides to every story.

[Chisoxfn]

Can you EVER point out anything that the Democratic party does wrong?  EVER?  That's more the point here. 

 

My point, OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER again, is that BOTH parties screw up and break laws - or at least get as gray as can be to justify their end means, and that is POWER.  So why pick THIS ONE IRS code and beat the snot out of it and say that this is over the top?  Frankly, there's probably more damaging stuff out there then this... 

 

I don't feel like searching for it but I can certainly find links to Kerry's campaign accepting illegal funds.  I can certainly find all sorts of stuff that is shady and/or illegal from the Gore campaign.

 

In this specific IRS code, yea, Bush/Cheney is doing some pretty crazy stuff.  WRONG.  It's BS.  Let's throw the idoits in jail.  Does that make you feel better?Thank you, cw, for being our hero and pointing it out.  Read it again... YES, BUSH/CHENEY ARE WRONG.  See?  I can say that because I'm not on some political witchhunt.         

 

BUT WHAT ABOUT ALL THE OTHER STUFF THAT DOESN'T GET REPORTED THAT THE DEMS ARE DOING?

 

Oh, I forgot.  That doesn't agree with what political agendas are.  Got it.  Thanks, have a nice day.

 

By the way, honestly, I don't care.  The only part I care about is to simply point out that there are ALWAYS two sides to every story.

[cwsox]

Can you EVER point out anything that the Democratic party does wrong?  EVER?  That's more the point here. 

 

My point, OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER again, is that BOTH parties screw up and break laws - or at least get as gray as can be to justify their end means, and that is POWER.  So why pick THIS ONE IRS code and beat the snot out of it and say that this is over the top?  Frankly, there's probably more damaging stuff out there then this... 

 

I don't feel like searching for it but I can certainly find links to Kerry's campaign accepting illegal funds.  I can certainly find all sorts of stuff that is shady and/or illegal from the Gore campaign.

 

In this specific IRS code, yea, Bush/Cheney is doing some pretty crazy stuff.  WRONG.  It's BS.  Let's throw the idoits in jail.  Does that make you feel better?Thank you, cw, for being our hero and pointing it out.  Read it again... YES, BUSH/CHENEY ARE WRONG.  See?  I can say that because I'm not on some political witchhunt.         

 

BUT WHAT ABOUT ALL THE OTHER STUFF THAT DOESN'T GET REPORTED THAT THE DEMS ARE DOING?

 

Oh, I forgot.  That doesn't agree with what political agendas are.  Got it.  Thanks, have a nice day.

 

By the way, honestly, I don't care.  The only part I care about is to simply point out that there are ALWAYS two sides to every story.

Kap, I anxiously await the first thread from you and/or so many others in which the Republicans or Bush and Cheney are called to account for something.

 

I think some protest way, way, way too much to the point of just being Pavlovian type bulls***.

 

You should have been on the OJ defense team. Why stress these murders when there are other crimes out there! For the record, I did not beat this thing to death; I posted originally, once, and then explained why it is apples when others tried to make it oranges. When there are five or six threads started by me... until then, I did not "beat the snot" out of this.

[YASNY]

you equate partisan moveon with churches under 501 C3 and when that equation is shown false, you attack my threads with the partisan s*** that is so spin that the bobbleheads in my room are getting dizzy from all that spin. 

 

From the Spinmaster, himself. Pot, kettle .....

[kapkomet]

Kap, I anxiously await the first thread from you and/or so many others in which the Republicans or Bush and Cheney are called to account for something.

 

I think some protest way, way, way too much to the point of just being Pavlovian type bulls***.

 

You should have been on the OJ defense team.  Why stress these murders when there are other crimes out there! For the record, I did not beat this thing to death; I posted originally, once, and then explained why it is apples when others tried to make it oranges. When there are five or six threads started by me... until then, I did not "beat the snot" out of this.

 

LMAO.

 

That's the funniest thing I have seen here in a long time.

 

Bush/Cheney are held to a higher standard EVERY DAY. It's called the MEDIA. They can't take a s*** without someone digging in it to see if it smells like a political agenda or not. Your posts are living proof of that.

 

Have a nice day!!

[southsider2k5]

typical: fact is stated, so: shift the subject, do not respond to the fact at hand.

 

When you kill me, at your trial: "but other people kill people so its all ok, both sides do it!"

 

getting away from the postings of the wild eyed, I might note that if Kerry is guilty of what you charge, under about 3 years of Nixon after Kerry's return from Nam, where we know Nixon discussed and wanted to get Kerry, through 2 years of Ford, 8 years of Reagan, 4 of Bush 1, and 3 of Bush 2, I would suppose if any actual crimes were commited, 20 years of Republican failure to act means either the Republicans cannot be trusted to act or there are no crimes to be prosecuted for.

 

as for the  you saying you didn't give creedence to your own stuff - or is it French stuff?           

 

you equate partisan moveon with churches under 501 C3 and when that equation is shown false, you attack my threads with the partisan s*** that is so spin that the bobbleheads in my room are getting dizzy from all that spin.

 

I love you ss2k4 and I prefer to keep it that way.  Good night and God bless!

My point of view has always been to procecute them. Maybe if we actually enforced our nations laws, we would have one decent canditate for the highest office in the land. And I have always said that. I said back when the Abu Grad thing was breaking that whoever had knowledge and gave anykind of approval should be impeached. I don't really care where the buck stops, fix it.

 

The problem is our legal structure is such that if you are rich or in a high enough profile case, that you get better "justice" than if you are poor and/or obscure. And when it gets to the highest levels of office, it literaly takes a witch hunt to get our laws enforced. I am sick of their being no repurcussions for the treasonist criminals that have held our highest office, and that goes back so far into history it is discusting.

 

Personally I am also sick that both sides present their canditates as some kind of alternative. They are both crooks. Literally. Hell the Senate probably has more felonies per person than most "crime infested ghettos". How often do any of those clowns get procecuted. And when they do, they get off easy like that asshat governor who killed someone. Poor people don't get anywhere near that level of "justice".

 

We as a country need to get some balls and open our eyes to reality. We elect and reelect so many criminals to office it is astounding, and we literally have no idea, nor do we want to. And then we wonder why this country has been so poorly run for so long. Hmm put criminals in charge of a budget of trillions and wonder why this happens?

 

Believe what you want to believe. But don't tell me John Kerry is going to be any better, because he already has the same history of selling his influence and committing criminal acts that the republicans have. John Kerry and his bunch are no different than W and his bunch, is no different than Clinton and his bunch, is no different than Reagan and his bunch...

[FlaSoxxJim]

Where should I send the Ritalin??

 

This thread is like an ADD convention. It began with a thesis post that identified a very specific situation that has arisin where violation of 501©(3) tax-exempt status is all but assured if targeted churches follow the schedule issued by a partisan election campaign. It didn't suggest that there was no other type of campaign violation that occurs or that any one political party has a stranglehold on such violations.

 

All of those other dirty tricks are likely worthy of independent debate, but they do little to further the topic at hand – churches unfairly benefiting from 501©(3) status while blatantly violating the guidelines. Run these issues up their own flagpole (start a thread) and see where they go. Or don't. But the ability of stay on topic is part of the art of debate and anything else is smoke and mirrors.

 

Some folks here may legitimately hold the "so what?" opinion here on the matter (as Jas suggested). Fair enough. But the truth is that it is giving unfair consideration to a church to grant them tax-exempt status provided the comply with the guidelines, and then shrug it off when they are in violation and just continue to allow them to enjoy that exeptions.

 

Tax-exempt status is a huge deal for churches that just scrape by and that have to humbly ask parishoners to fund them and at the same time trust them to handle church finances correctly. That cw initiated this thread as a point of personal outrage is not surprising, but that in itself doesn't in any way indicate a political agenda. Having spent, what, 30 years deiling with the intricacies of church 501©(3) designation, do you think he might have some insight into this?

 

And before this devolves into another 'how is he/she the only person allowed to have an opinion on certain topics' gripe, let's just admit that each of us have our own fields of knowledge and expertise. By extension, we all have different trigger points – news stories that set off feelinngs of outrage because we have logged the time in our respective fields to know when something is awry.

 

Every once in a while a biological matter pops up in a thread and I am, very briefly, wholly in my element. eg, The "controversial" topic of evolution rears its head and people start to spew assorted uninformed nonsense and I cannot in good consience leave it unchallenged. Ditto for all of us when we find ourselves the de facto experts-in-residence on subjects that pop up. Take this thread for what it is. cw has been asked to obey a set of rules regardinng the 501©(3) designation of his church for 3 decades, and despite being very politically active and - yes, partisan in his politics - he has had enough respect for the law to walk the line. I'll allow him his outrage on this matter when the reelection campaign for a sitting President does think it needs to show the same respect for the law.

[FlaSoxxJim]

My point of view has always been to procecute them.  Maybe if we actually enforced our nations laws, we would have one decent canditate for the highest office in the land.  And I have always said that. I said back when the Abu Grad thing was breaking that whoever had knowledge and gave anykind of approval should be impeached.  I don't really care where the buck stops, fix it.

 

The problem is our legal structure is such that if you are rich or in a high enough profile case, that you get better "justice" than if you are poor and/or obscure.    And when it gets to the highest levels of office, it literaly takes a witch hunt to get our laws enforced.  I am sick of their being no repurcussions for the treasonist criminals that have held our highest office, and that goes back so far into history it is discusting.

 

Personally I am also sick that both sides present their canditates as some kind of alternative.  They are both crooks.  Literally.  Hell the Senate probably has more felonies per person than most "crime infested ghettos".  How often do any of those clowns get procecuted.  And when they do, they get off easy like that asshat governor who killed someone.  Poor people don't get anywhere near that level of "justice".

 

We as a country need to get some balls and open our eyes to reality.  We elect and reelect so many criminals to office it is astounding, and we literally have no idea, nor do we want to.  And then we wonder why this country has been so poorly run for so long.  Hmm put criminals in charge of a budget of trillions and wonder why this happens? 

 

Believe what you want to believe.  But don't tell me John Kerry is going to be any better, because he already has the same history of selling his influence and committing criminal acts that the republicans have.  John Kerry and his bunch are no different than W and his bunch, is no different than Clinton and his bunch, is no different than Reagan and his bunch...

Well, maybe we have gotten hopelessly off topic, but there isw little in this post I disagree with.

 

There is a reason that none of us here chose to go into politics.

[kapkomet]

Ok, let me "re-summarize".

 

I agree that this is a topic that, originally stated, kicked cw right in the groin. That's why he picked it for a topic. Point noted and taken. And being that I do know a little about tax code and it's consequences, what Bush/Cheney is doing is extremely radical and dangerous. I'll even go as far as saying that it's downright TWISTED because it's using religion as a means to bolster their campaign against the law, and it makes me want to puke.

 

But, then, I went on this little tangent to say that they all find ways to exploit to get the vote. That's all I meant by, as cw said, "mommy, they all do it". I'm sure I can find examples of the Democrats resorting to some of the same tactics. But I don't have time. I only stated what I did, because, I like to see both sides to an arguement, not just one side. Several times on this board and within this thread, hell, even this post, I say that what the Republican party is resorting to - to get votes, is sickening. But, the Democrats will exploit as well, and that's been my point all along this topsy turvy, poop flinging road.

 

But the original topic, cw is right, and I agree, perhaps that has gotten lost, this is a dangerous, dangerous precedent. But, they are all going down that road to hell.

[mreye]

I agree this is a badd idea by the RNC and the Bush campaign, but I'll throw another log on the fire. Is this any different than the campaign finance and tax laws that labor unions break when they invest members' dues without a vote?

[southsider2k5]

I agree this is a badd idea by the RNC and the Bush campaign, but I'll throw another log on the fire. Is this any different than the campaign finance and tax laws that labor unions break when they invest members' dues without a vote?

Or when the steel mills tell their members how to vote (which I know for a fact happens)

[mreye]

Or when the steel mills tell their members how to vote (which I know for a fact happens)

Yes, it does. I get the old Steelworkers magazine delivered to my house still from my Grandfather.

[kapkomet]

That's "legal", though... Quit changing the subject!

[Queen Prawn]

Or when the steel mills tell their members how to vote (which I know for a fact happens)

Most unions do. I know for a fact the Press union and my dad's local (he's a janitor...er...maintanence engineer, used to be a steelworker but US Steel closed and that was that) both do. I think the fireman's union does as well, but I have to ask either my FSIL or FFIL to know for sure...

[mreye]

I don't have a problem so much with Unions "Endorsing" a candidate as I do with them using rank and file dollars to do it.