Labor Makes Big Comback in '08 Races -- Ramping Up Spending, Unions Get Voters to the Polls

From The Wall Street Journal:

Big Labor is growing new political muscles.

Even as the number of unionized workers falls nationwide, labor unions are showing increased power in this topsy-turvy election season. By deploying new strategies to use their money, unions have regained their position as the single-strongest force in elections, outside of the presidential candidates and the national parties. That's a boost for Democrats, since labor is a pillar of the party.

Many thought campaign-finance reforms enacted in 2002 would diminish the clout of labor along with that of business. The law was meant to stem the influence of big money in politics by barring individuals, corporations, unions and other interest groups from making large donations to the parties.

But unlike companies, unions have adapted by shifting their spending to an often-overlooked part of campaigns: getting out the vote, or what pros call the "ground game." Unions have continued to ramp up their political spending and targeted it to get out the vote for candidates that labor leaders endorse.

Labor officials began to re-emphasize campaign operations about a decade ago, as their shrinking membership was hindering their influence. They redoubled their efforts after the campaign-finance law took effect. Businesses still spend far more but haven't adjusted as well: Their political spending has leveled off since 2002.

Labor's rising influence was a little-noticed factor in Sen. Clinton's surprise win in the New Hampshire primary last week. She beat Sen. Obama by 7,500 votes out of 290,000 cast -- and with the help of three of the state's largest unions, beat him by 4,000 votes among union workers alone, exit polls suggested.

Labor's potential impact in New Hampshire and Nevada goes beyond the Democratic nominating contests. Both are considered swing states in the general election, as are several larger states with big union presences, including Pennsylvania and Ohio. A reinvigorated labor movement could tip some toward Democrats in November.

Labor unions still spend only about half as much on elections as companies and their political action committees as a whole. But the gap is closing.

Corporations don't spend much to try to get employees to vote . . . .

The share of union members in the working population has been falling over the years, reaching 12% last year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But exit polls show that voters living in households that include a union member make up almost one-quarter of those who vote in elections, a proportion that's up since the 1990s. Those voters don't necessarily vote for union-backed candidates, to be sure.

Labor spent $32 million on its own mailings and television and radio advertisements in months before the 2004 and 2006 elections, a nearly fivefold jump over the previous four years. In the past few months, unions have spent more than $4 million on advertisements and mailings, mostly to back Mrs. Clinton.

But the airwaves are jammed with political advertising, and labor's unique contribution is its ability to find and motivate reliable Democratic voters. The Republican side relies on the religious right and a formidable database of conservative voters first built by former White House adviser Karl Rove in the late 1990s.

Though the Culinary Union [in Nevada] didn't endorse Sen. Obama until last week, its organizers have been going door to door since last summer to make sure its members were registered to vote and persuade them to back whichever candidate the union ended up endorsing.

With a large number of Hispanic immigrants in its ranks, the Culinary Union helped 2,000 immigrant members get citizenship so they could vote. But the union's Hispanic population may cut into its effectiveness for Sen. Obama: Hispanics nationally favor Sen. Clinton by 56% to 11% in the most recent Wall Street Journal poll.