Koch network to invest nearly $400M to help protect GOP majorities The influential Koch network plans to invest close to $400 million David Koch Charles Koch toward protecting Republican majorities in the 2018 midterm election cycle, the network's leaders confirmed Saturday -- roughly a 60 percent increase over the group's 2016 spending, they said. "This network is going to have the largest investment we've ever had in a midterm election in 2018," said Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity, one of the groups under the Koch umbrella. "So, we're all in." The network had previously indicated it was to spend between $300 million and $400 million toward both policy and political objectives. The spending target was previously announced last summer; the network's leaders stressed Saturday that they now anticipate hitting the top of that range by Election Day.
The announcement came as the network's donors were set to convene in the California desert Saturday for an annual retreat. A key component of the Koch networks' strategy to counter a Democratic surge will focus on selling the sweeping tax reform passed by congressional Republicans and signed into law by the president last month. The Koch network plans to spend roughly $20 million on that effort alone, said a spokesman, James Davis -- on par with the investment the network made last year in pushing for the plan's passage. Republicans and the Koch network will have their work cut out for them: When Congress approved the legislation in December, most Americans opposed it. But the plan's boosters have maintained that it will become more popular as the changes begin to take effect this year. "Our job is to make sure we shine a spotlight on those benefits that are occurring because of this law, and over time, that should overwhelm what has been a lot of
demagoguery," said Phillips. "It is a process, though, and we know that." Republicans are bracing for a punishing election year in 2018, a dynamic that Phillips acknowledged. Historically, he stressed, the party in power struggles during a president's first midterm election -- as in 2010, when Democrats lost the House in a historic wave under President Barack Obama. "You're going against the tide," said Phillips. "You're going against history." Another challenge for Republicans is an energized Democratic electorate, Phillips added, as reflected in the Virginia governor's race last fall and recent special elections. "The left is energized," Phillips said. "There's no question about that. And it's prudent for folks to understand that and acknowledge that."
Watch this very informative video on how they are controlling our government.
Supreme Court may deal major blow to labor unions WASHINGTON — The nation's powerful public employee unions stand to lose membership, money and political muscle at the hands of the Supreme Court this year. The only question appears to be how much. On the court's docket next month are fees paid in 22 states by police, firefighters, teachers and other government workers who decline to join unions that must represent them anyway. But much more is at stake in a nation with declining union membership and growing economic inequality. After three tries in 2012, 2014 and 2016, the high court is poised to reverse its own 40 -year-old precedent and strike down the socalled "fair share" fees as unconstitutional. The 1977 ruling said workers did not have to pay for unions' political activity. The verdict expected by June would allow them to contribute nothing at all. If the court's five conservatives vote the way both sides anticipate, public employee unions in traditionally Democratic states in the Northeast and West will lose those workers and the fees they pay. Other lawsuits could follow if workers are allowed to band together and seek refunds for fees already paid. On top of that, unions are braced for a slow bleed of full dues-paying members. Until now, those workers could save only
about 10% to 20% of their costs by quitting the union; a ruling against fair-share fees would enable them to become "free riders." That could force unions to raise dues on those who remain or lose clout in states such as California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. "If they don't see this coming, they're totally blind," says Daniel DiSalvo, a labor expert at the conservative Manhattan Institute. He predicts public employee unions could lose from 10% to 30% of their membership and financing over time. The case, Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, will be heard F eb. 26 and decided by the end of June. It's backed by conservative groups that have tried for years to overturn the court's decades-old decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which upheld charging non-members fees to pay for collective bargaining, but not politics. The court has ruled 7-2, 5-4 and 4-4 on three similar cases in the past six years, eating away at that 1977 decision without overruling it entirely. In 2016, Justice Antonin Scalia's death a month after oral argument denied conservatives their fifth vote — a vote Justice Neil Gorsuch is widely expected to provide.
Less assured is the impact such a ruling would have on organized labor in general, and public employees unions in particular. But after a 70year decline in union membership, the consensus is for more of the same. "If there is no union security in the public sector, we will see the diminution of union density, which is already miniscule in this country," says Angela Cornell, director of Cornell Law School's labor law clinic. "Unions cannot function without resources." From Senator Whitehouse: I thought you might be interested in reading an amicus brief that Senators Blumenthal & myself submitted to the Supreme Court in Janus v. AFSME. The case, which concerns the constitutionality of public sector union agency fees, represents the culmination of a decadeslong, partisan effort to gut public sector employee unions. Their brief highlights the role of dark-money-fueled special interests behind that effort, stresses the importance of neutral principles of justiciability (like standing and stare decisis), and warns of the threat this case poses to the Court’s institutional credibility...Read the Brief ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rhode Island Alliance for Retired Americans, Inc. • 94 Cleveland Street • North Providence, RI • 02904-3525 • 401-480-8381 riarajap@hotmail.com • http://www.facebook.com/groups/354516807278/