Smoke, Mirrors, and the Firefighters "Issue"

It's hard to tell what's more surprising: that the endorsement of candidates by Firefighters Local 742 has flared up in this year's municipal election, or that it never really has before.
 
I was especially surprised to hear anyone express surprise at the union's involvement. The participation by Evanston firefighters in local elections is not at all new. I first became aware of it in, as best I recall, the early '90s. But while common knowledge among political insiders, it's not on the radar of most Evanston residents. This article is to demystify it a little bit.

 
The local, as is clear from the relatively small size of its monetary contributions, is not a large financial force in any election. It's silly to suggest that the position of any of the candidates, and perhaps especially Liz Tisdahl, is going to be purchased by $500 from the firefighters' union. The union's political support of a candidate is more important in its symbolic value, and in whatever fieldwork its members decide to offer in thir spare time -- typically, helping distribute flyers, or even knock on doors.
 
The word "PAC" is used but that's a term of art (short for "political action committee") more appropriate to federal election law. The firefighters, with respect to state and local elections, are a "political committee," just as are the committees of, for instance, all four candidates for mayor. Forming a group to have a voice in elections is not only legal, it's a constitutional right guaranteed by the first amendment, and afforded to employees in both the private and public sector.
 
As union membership as a percentage of private sector employment has fallen in the past several decades, the prominence of public-sector unions in the labor movement, and their voice in the political process, has grown. The Evanston Firemans PAC is dwarfed by the teachers' unions: the Illinois PAC for Education in the second half of 2008 gave over $1 million to state and local candidates and committees in Illinois while spending another $1 million on its own, and the Illinois Federation of Teachers was in the same league. AFSCME and SEIU are also extremely influential, especially in Democratic primaries, and compete aggressively with each other for the right to represent public employees.
 
Generally, the Evanston firefighters have been supportive of and even closely aligned with Democrats in non-municipal elections, and they have been more likely to contribute to DPOE and to committees associated with other Democratic Evanston officeholders than to candidates for alderman or mayor.
 
In federal elections, a candidate may not accept contributions from any labor union. In Illinois, there is no such limit in state or local races. However, even in federal elections, unions can and do endorse, and their political arms (if they have one) may make independent expenditures.
 
The "influence" that anyone's support has on candidates and, once elected, our officials, is hard to pin down, and we need to be careful about allegations of conflict of interest. Should candidates for 6th Ward alderman not accept contributions from 6th Ward residents, on the grounds that they'll have to make decisions affecting those residents while in office? Should candidates for mayor not accept contributions from people who own Evanston businesses? How about Evanston residents?
 
There are several important realities here. One is the truism that politics is about addition, not subtraction, and most candidates welcome support from most quarters, refusing only contributions tainted by scandal or extreme views of the contributor. A second is that campaigning at every level has become more expensive; while I laid out for a friend a scenario by which a candidate could successfully run for Evanston alderman while staying under the $3,000 trigger for forming a committee, I don't think that's possible for mayor, and the tab in state and federal legislative races has obviously gone much higher. No one seriously suggests limiting candidates to self-funding only, so unless we move to a system of public financing of elections, as reformers have long urged, candidates have to raise funds and seek support from folks who will help save money by going door-to-door. Those most likely to offer such money or time are those whose lives, homes, and livelihoods are most likely to be affected by the decisions elected officials will make. In this regard, what a group like the firefighters does simply mirrors what any voters do, except the firefighters have chosen to do it as a group, which generally gives political participants a little more oomph. This is hardly news; note our slogan at the top of this web page.
 
Right now unions, like corporations, have a right to contribute to municipal campaigns. Until Illinois law is changed, the challenge for the voter is to take any such endorsement or support in context; to discount by, yes, self-interest, and to accord weight to expertise. Yes, firefighters have a vested interest in the decisions our next Council and mayor will make, just as teachers do in school boards, and just as residents and developers do. On the other hand, I am interested in what municipal employees think about our municipal government, just as I am in what teachers think about school candidates. The firefighters were sounding alarms, for example, about our pension situation many years before the Council admitted we have a serious problem.
 
The fact that a group, most of whom don't live in Evanston, plays a part in Evanston elections, may be a factor for some. On the other hand, none of the aldermanic candidates we asked last week expressed support for requiring municipal employees to live in Evanston, as Chicago requires for its police and fire.
 
Our CSNA survey showed that union backing in municipal elections has moderate influence for most; for a significant minority, it's a negative. Probably one's reaction correlates with feelings about unions, or public employee unions, generally. I can't recall hearing a bad word ever about Evanston firefighters, generally; most people like firemen, including their own town's. It would be helpful if the reasons for the firefighters' endorsements, and their process, were a little more transparent.
 
Most political support comes with some pluses and minuses. As with most things political, shedding more light, not less, and avoiding hasty oversimplification, makes for a better discussion.