For decades the Local 2 membership has had discussions on the effectiveness of giving money to politicians. Critics contend that political contributions do not affect the outcome of any efforts put forth by Local 2 when securing salary, benefits and working conditions. Conversely, during my nearly twenty years on the job, I have heard members of various Executive Boards state that Local 2 can’t get anything done if they don’t ‘play the game’. I never liked framing the discussion of important issues such as work, health, and financial security in terms of a ’game’. The issues facing the Local 2 membership are serious and the process of adopting policies and legislation which effect our livelihood are complex and are more involved than just writing a check.
According to the Local 2 annual reports summarized in the schedule above, our union distributes on average a little over $160,000 a year in contributions to politicians. The schedule illustrates how Local 2 transfers money from the General Fund into the PAC fund to write checks to these politicians. Over $1.5 million, nearly $.80 of every $1.00 in political contributions made by Local 2, came directly from the membership’s union dues through a transfer from the General Fund. And when the Executive Board meeting minutes don’t identify the politicians Local 2 contributes to, it isn’t a stretch to reasonably conclude the Executive Board is taking your dues and giving it to politicians without your knowledge or consent.
Even though the Local 2 Executive Board refuses to publish who receives our union dues in the form of political contributions, it is possible to go through the effort and identify them yourself. The Illinois State Board of Elections maintains a database of political contributions. The following table illustrates the top recipients of political contributions by Local 2 maintained by the Illinois State Board of Elections.
The topic of Local 2 political contributions has become even more prevalent at firehouse kitchen tables as the public policies being implemented are moving away from what the average middle class union member would support. More recently, the desire to limit political contributions gained steam as many Local 2 members expressed frustration with the City’s heavy handed pandemic ultimatums.
So again, the question becomes – how effective are these political contributions? We see our dues going to a one-party political process, but when that autocratic political party gets heavy-handed, we see how ineffective our political contributions have become. Regardless of how much money our union spends in political contributions, Local 2 will have no seat at the table unless they change strategy. Under the current strategy, this Executive Board could contribute $1 million a year and they still would have no meaningful dialogue with the decision makers.
Clearly many members have had enough of this relationship and that is why at a meeting last year, a retired member stood up and made a motion to the floor that Local 2 limit political contributions. That motion was voted out of order by the Local 2 President even though a majority of the membership present supported the motion. The effects of anti-democratic actions by this Executive Board, which refuses to acknowledge the wishes of its membership and neglects to inform them of who receives their union dues in the form of political contributions is going to have long term implications to the union’s credibility with its members.
Had Local 2’s current strategy been working; I think this Executive Board could have been more effective in securing funding for members during the pandemic. During the pandemic the City received billions of dollars from the Federal government through the CARES Act and American Rescue Plan. One item the Federal Treasury suggested the City utilize the funds for included – “Provide premium pay for essential workers, offering additional support to those who have and will bear the greatest health risks because of their service in critical sectors”. Yet even with this enormous injection of federal dollars and overwhelming public support, Local 2 was not able to secure any of this money for its members working on the front lines of the pandemic.
A better strategy would be recognizing the power we have in our numbers. There are approximately 4,700 active members and 3,500 retirees on the fire department. For the police department the numbers are approximately 12,700 active and 9,000 retirees. That is almost 30,000 households. Granted some of these members live out of the State, but nevertheless that is large voting bloc that should easily be united by common interests. If we can get a majority of those households engaged in important issues then the effectiveness of any political endeavor would be meaningful. But first Local 2 needs to educate itself on relevant issues. There are members of the current Executive Board that don’t even think we have a funding crisis facing our pension fund. It is going to be difficult to change strategies and address problems when the current Local 2 leadership doesn’t even recognize the significant problems staring them in the face.
I’ve proposed it before, and I will propose it again – Local 2 should take a 2-to-3-year hiatus from making political contributions and endorsements. Let us strategize on a legislative agenda and build up a substantial PAC fund before making any more contributions or endorsements. When items on our political agenda succeed that is when we endorse and contribute, because let’s be honest, endorsing and contributing beforehand hasn’t gotten us anywhere. I’ve heard the current leadership’s argument of “That’s not how the game is played” and I don’t buy it. You shouldn’t either.
Timothy McPhillips
Former FABF Pension Fund Trustee