Union vote issue works against Democrats

NY Times:

With an actor from “The Sopranos” portraying a union heavy, a new political commercial from a pro-business group being shown in Maine suggests that the Democratic Senate candidate in a competitive race is trying to infringe on the privacy of workers.

The advertisement, disputed by the candidate, is part of a large-scale effort by two independent advocacy groups to turn a relatively low-profile pro-labor vote in Congress into a major impediment for Democrats as they seek to expand their Senate majority.

“We have a very simple strategy,” said Mike Murphy, media adviser to the group behind the advertisement in Maine and one in Minnesota about the vote on a measure to make it easier to unionize American workplaces. “Let’s make it famous. It is a bad law.”

The two groups, which will not disclose the sources of money behind their campaigns, may spend as much as a combined $50 million by November. The extent of the media effort has sent Democrats scrambling for ways to respond to what they call misleading advertisements without getting thrown off their own message. Party leaders are also sharply critical of the secrecy behind the spending.

“The fact that these expenditures are not only so large but are undisclosed is extremely troubling,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, who said the groups “are trying to influence the elections with millions of dollars that the public can’t trace.”

...

The legislation that is the subject of the intensifying campaign is the Employee Free Choice Act, a labor-backed measure that passed the House but stalled in a Republican filibuster in the Senate. Under the proposal, workers could unionize if they receive the signatures of a majority of workers in a bargaining unit on authorization cards rather than submit to an election.

...

The latest Maine advertisement, which features the actor Vincent Curatola, who played the mobster Johnny Sack in the “Sopranos” television series, is being paid for by the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, which lists leading national business trade associations as members of its coalition. It shows Mr. Curatola, recreating his familiar persona, favoring Mr. Allen for supporting action to “eliminate the secret ballot for workers,” while he laments the stand of Senator Susan Collins, the Republican incumbent, against the bill.

A more extensive series of advertisements is being produced by the Employee Freedom Action Committee, which has begun television, radio and print advertising in at least seven states besides Maine. They are Colorado, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire and Oregon — all states where there are closely watched Senate races.

That group is headed by Richard Berman, a Washington public affairs operative who has clashed in the past with labor. Both groups are trying to deny Democrats the votes to enact the measure, which Mr. Berman portrayed as a power grab on behalf of unions by lawmakers supported by organized labor. He said backers providing the money for his campaign, which could total $30 million on its own, did not want to be identified because they feared possible retaliation.

To Democrats, the advertising campaigns raise alarms that intervention in Congressional races by well-financed outside groups could erase the fund-raising advantage the party has over Republican Senate and House campaign organizations.

...

Hopefully the Democrat fears will be realized. It is a terrible law that even George McGovern opposes. Democrats deserve to lose on this issue. I don't recall Chuck Schumer expressing similar concerns about expenditures by outside groups in 2006 that favored Democrats.