Skip to main content

Electing Tyler Nixon: Gerald Brady and the Unions

Here's an interesting question for voters in Delaware's 4th House District.

Fact: Gerald Brady is employed as the Executive Director of the Delaware AFL-CIO.

Fact: Gerald Brady has solicited and received over $5,000 in campaign contributions from unions (including the Delaware AFL-CIO) over the past two years.

In 2006:
Delaware AFL-CIO--$600
Political Education Committee, Local 1238 IBEW--$300
ABC Educational Fund Local 27 [Baltimore MD]-$100

In 2007:
FOP State PAC--$200
PAC Local Union No. 451 --$200
Local 42 PAC Asbestos Workers --$300
Delaware Building Trades --$200
Bricklayers & Allied Crafts Local 1PA/DE PAC Fund--$600
Plumbers & Pipeļ¬tters Local No.74 PAC--$600
Wilm Police/Fire Pension Task Force--$100
ABC Educational Fund Local 27 --$100
F.O.P.State PAC Fund--$400
IUOE Local 542 --$400
Carpenters Local #626 --$600
IBEW Local #313 --$300
Politial Education Committee, IBEW local #1238--$300


Grand total (not including what Gerald has socked away so far in 2008): $5,200

Now the question: How is it not a conflict of interest for the Executive Director of the Delaware AFL-CIO to be soliciting and receiving campaign contributions from the organizations he is paid to coordinate?

Democrats--both liberal and progressive--are encouraged to try their hands at this one.

There will be a test later.

Libertarian/Republican Tyler Nixon for the Delaware House of Representatives!!

Comments

Anonymous said…
The reason why labor unions contribute to Gerald Brady's campaign is because he's a exceptional state representative and a good man. His performance the past two years in Dover has demonstrated this. He's succeeded in passing eleven pieces of legislation in his first term, that's pretty impressive. It's not a conflict of interest, it's called doing a great job.

Popular posts from this blog

Comment Rescue (?) and child-related gun violence in Delaware

In my post about the idiotic over-reaction to a New Jersey 10-year-old posing with his new squirrel rifle , Dana Garrett left me this response: One waits, apparently in vain, for you to post the annual rates of children who either shoot themselves or someone else with a gun. But then you Libertarians are notoriously ambivalent to and silent about data and facts and would rather talk abstract principles and fear monger (like the government will confiscate your guns). It doesn't require any degree of subtlety to see why you are data and fact adverse. The facts indicate we have a crisis with gun violence and accidents in the USA, and Libertarians offer nothing credible to address it. Lives, even the lives of children, get sacrificed to the fetishism of liberty. That's intellectual cowardice. OK, Dana, let's talk facts. According to the Children's Defense Fund , which is itself only querying the CDCP data base, fewer than 10 children/teens were killed per year in Delaw

With apologies to Hube: dopey WNJ comments of the week

(Well, Hube, at least I'm pulling out Facebook comments and not poaching on your preserve in the Letters.) You will all remember the case this week of the photo of the young man posing with the .22LR squirrel rifle that his Dad got him for his birthday with resulted in Family Services and the local police attempting to search his house.  The story itself is a travesty since neither the father nor the boy had done anything remotely illegal (and check out the picture for how careful the son is being not to have his finger inside the trigger guard when the photo was taken). But the incident is chiefly important for revealing in the Comments Section--within Delaware--the fact that many backers of "common sense gun laws" really do have the elimination of 2nd Amendment rights and eventual outright confiscation of all privately held firearms as their objective: Let's run that by again: Elliot Jacobson says, This instance is not a case of a father bonding with h

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — they are i