Bill O’Brien, the next speaker of the New Hampshire House, has drafted a bill for next session meant to resolve the conflict of interest that exists when state employees campaign for state politicians. Mr. O’Brien’s motivation, as reported in an article in the morning UL by John DiStaso, is Pam Walsh who collected thousands in political consulting fees from Teflon John Lynch while employed by the state.
The State Union objects to the bill on the grounds that the language in the proposed bill is too broad, that no state employee would be able to work for anyone running for office in the state. But maybe that’s not such a bad thing.
When you boil it down, there really isn’t any difference between a lobbyist and a public service union member who draws a taxpayer funded paycheck. These folks have an immediate financial interest in who is elected to office. They actually pay an entity (the union) to represent them in negotiations with the very government for whom they work, for the purpose of expanding their share of taxpayer patronage, a goal that is directly affected by who is elected to office. Their natural inclination will be to support politicians who will reward them with financial remuneration and/or expand union access or power to achieve similar gains. Not only is it a conflict of interest, it is a home field advantage that no other voter or taxpayer can hope to compete with, paid for by the taxpayers themselves from the dues paid out of taxpayer funded paychecks.
Why is this even legal?
The only defense non public-service employees have with which to protect their incomes is to find that small sliver of public servants who will try to slow unnecessary growth of government at the potential expense of their own wages and lifestyles. These are few and far between, and even when you find them, they are surrounded daily–and are sometimes at the mercy of–state employees who do not agree with their goals, and union leaders and their lobbyists who use union money as leverage in the form of campaign contributions.
Private citizens do not have a structured, well-paid organization like a state wide or national union embedded within the political process. The unions typically have a well informed, well known, well paid leadership team on call 24/7, whose sole function is to take more money from taxpayers and give it to the rank and file public sector employees whom they represent. These union bosses have a vested interest in the growth of wages and the addition of even more taxpayer funded employees to grow the union business the same way any business model seeks to grow its revenue. More state workers, or a steady increase in their wages and benefits (all at taxpayer expense) allows the union to raise dues, or private contributions to their political PAC’s, that increase their bottom line, so they can then extort more money through politicians.
(And despite all these advantages, democrats still try to limit paid speech by anyone not in a union. The people should be in revolt.)
Taxpayers will never really be able to compete politically on the local level with this kind of organizing and financial power on issues or campaigns, yet unions are free to use state employees to bilk additional money from the pockets of taxpayers without fear of a conflict of interest. So it is technically impossible for any state employee to act in any political capacity for a union or a campaign without having a vested interest in the outcome–which in all cases is to deny taxpayers of their wages to expand the cost and power of government, through elected officials.
While legislating that relationship away with as much enthusiasm as liberals legislate money and speech in politics to stifle opposition is a step in the right direction, a simpler solution would be to eliminate public sector unions all together. Once you remove the union component of public service you create a level of parity with other taxpayers that otherwise cannot exist.
If banning public sector unions is not an option, instituting complex rules for public sector union employees and politics must be accompanied by a strong right to work component. This could provide an out for anyone who would like to lobby the political process as a paid government employee or support a specific candidate without conflict by allowing them to eschew union representation and the requirement to pay dues to that union. With the dues component removed, any political involvement is put in parity with that of any other taxpayer.
One potential side effect of making representation by a union an actual choice that workers can make on their own…? The end of public sector unions in New Hampshire.
It’s a risk I’m willing to take.
