Union leaders fiscally irresponsible when paying for political advertizing

As a long time union member, there was always one thing large unions did that completely irritated and annoyed me. Spending my dues, that should be going to improve union health, pension, and individual training programs and benefits on political advertising for candidates that the union leadership feels compelled to support.

I was reading a CNN article on how Hillary Clinton had raised $35 million dollars for her campaign in February, when I came across this little piece at the bottom.

“The Service Employees International Union began spending $1.4 million in ads in support of Obama in Ohio and Texas. The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union was spending nearly $200,000 in ads in Ohio.”

Now as far as I’m concerned there is nothing that a union should be spending the hard earned union dues of it’s membership on other than benefits and programs to support the members that pay the dues that are being spent.

If Obama can raise $32 million dollars for his campaign in January, and Clinton can raise $35 million dollars in February, they are more than capable of paying for their own advertising. If the Union leadership wants to support a particular candidate because they are pro-union then they can volunteer their time, or ask membership to volunteer their time in the myriad of things every political campaign needs bodies to help do.

But to me the spending of union funds on political advertising is tantamount to fiscal irresponsibility on the part of the union leadership. And if it could be outlawed I would fully support it.