Another poser musclecar from Chrysler...

[audtatious]

Arbitrators should be impartial. While there is always a possibility of bias, I would think many are retired public servants (i.e. judges). I'll agree that they have goon attorneys, but so do Chrysler....its a fair fight.

I would say the unions do a much better job than you lead to or that the corporations have weak minded fools who fold simply to get the production line moving again. Look at Hostess, the Teamsters contract was a death-blow in this economy. Someone folded and agreed to it. Same can be said with many auto makers. Hell, GM is now partially owned by a union.

[gwoods]

They can take that "Imported from Detroit" nonsense and shove it up their overpaid arses.

NOT cool, Chrysler. http://fxn.ws/Vq6vqy

Why don't you have a seat over here

[C-Kwik]

I would say the unions do a much better job than you lead to or that the corporations have weak minded fools who fold simply to get the production line moving again. Look at Hostess, the Teamsters contract was a death-blow in this economy. Someone folded and agreed to it. Same can be said with many auto makers. Hell, GM is now partially owned by a union.

The irony about the Hostess situation that the end result is the result of a free market mechanism. That is, the workers would not agree to work for the terms Hostess offered and Hostess refused the terms the union offered. Thus, no agreement was reached. Hostess decided it was better to sell.

Understand, I don't necessarily like unions. But I'll object to any laws that would stifle their ability to negotiate items that any other employees can bargain for with their employer. I've said this before. Unions were born of a free market. They should be allowed to exist in it as well. In a way, perhaps the Hostess situation needed to happen....if only to bring some balance back to the eyes of other unions and certain realities they may be facing in terms of negotiations.

[AZhitman]

I'll object to any laws that would stifle their ability to negotiate items that any other employees can bargain for with their employer.

I'm not sure how to phrase my confusion here, so bear with me. If the union were removed from the equation, we have employees and employers. If there was a "law" that stifled negotiations, and that "law" didn't apply to employees individually, then wouldn't the employees be better off just negotiating on their own?

Seems to me that, as a business owner, I want to hear from my employees, not some third-party outsider entity that purports to "represent" my employees (and has shown a zeal for justification of ITS OWN continued existence as an entity, potentially to the detriment of the employees).

[PapaSmurf2k3]

I agree with Greg on this one.

I almost see it as unions being a cartel. They completely control one side of the business and therefor can throw their weight around... usually for worse than for better. The third party thing just sort of twists the knife (not only does the view "skew" from the employee to management, but there's another entity that is trying to prove their worth.)
Without a union, if you don't like the terms, leave.

[AZhitman]

...and none of that changes the fact that the "Daytona" Charger is LOL-worthy.

Hey Chevy - Slap some stickers on the new Malibu, and call it the Chevelle Super Sport!

[mechanicalmoron]

Well hey, they're american cars.... they're all going to be big and heavy. And a bit cheesy. (the challanger is the least, at least...) But isn't it good that somebody's at least building RWD cars with some power?

And yeah, call them 2-door sedans, or whatever.... I don't have to know any specs to have a pretty good idea that they could all blow the doors off my underpowered nissan sports car. Or any of the underpowered sports cars I admire, for that matter.

As for unions, yeah, you're right, they're an outsider: that's the point. Maybe you're a good employer, but most corporations are NOT, and if one person goes demanding changes, they get fired, and someone hungrier gets the job. The union gives collective power to the workers, because they can all act and not be singled out, and if something happens to all of them, or whatever, the employer still has to deal with the union. Just because unions have become cartels... well so have many companys.

[C-Kwik]

I'm not sure how to phrase my confusion here, so bear with me. If the union were removed from the equation, we have employees and employers. If there was a "law" that stifled negotiations, and that "law" didn't apply to employees individually, then wouldn't the employees be better off just negotiating on their own?

Better off? Depends on how you put that into context. Would they be better off than if the union's power were reduced significantly. Maybe. Would they be better off than a union with all its negotiating power in tact? Doubtful.

Seems to me that, as a business owner, I want to hear from my employees, not some third-party outsider entity that purports to "represent" my employees (and has shown a zeal for justification of ITS OWN continued existence as an entity, potentially to the detriment of the employees).

You can run your business how you see fit. If you're doing a good job, its unlikely that you'll see your workers feeling as though they need to unionize. But if you run your business like crap and you start showing the door to employees who decide to speak up, you'll be more likely to see an uprising. How have little doubt that you will ever run into such an issue, but not every employer is you Greg. Lets not be so naïve to think that all employers are great at listening to their employees. I can cite numerous occasions where many basic complaints I made went unnoticed. And one particular complaint affected customers more than it did me. Moreover, the manager that was there when I was hired would have pushed to fix the issue, but he was forced to resign because he actually tried to make conditions better for us (I sat right outside his office so I could hear the conversations he was having with his superiors).

As for the union's need to justify itself, now isn't that the point? If the union fails to provide any benefit to the employees paying dues, why would they want to pay dues? Might it be to detriment of its employees? Sure. But they also have the right to fail in much the same way an individual might if he tried to negotiate a better deal and says he walks if he doesn't get what he wants. As such, they are entitled to their failures just as much as any individual.

I agree with Greg on this one.

I almost see it as unions being a cartel. They completely control one side of the business and therefor can throw their weight around... usually for worse than for better. The third party thing just sort of twists the knife (not only does the view "skew" from the employee to management, but there's another entity that is trying to prove their worth.)
Without a union, if you don't like the terms, leave.

So then you might say the company completely controls the other side of the business. So if the union is gone, the company controls a much larger part of the business than the individuals. So that leaves only one party to throw any weight around. In the case of union representation, there is a lot of weight on both sides.

Surely, an individual who doesn't like any particular aspect of their employment can leave. Generally, there isn't much alternative without a union representing you. On the other hand, union repped employees have a lot of options. Including consultation on their options. And in many cases, free representation.

Circling back to the particular issue having to do with the drunk employees, if what my research found is true, then like other employees before them, they should have received a similar reprimand (temporary suspension). The arbitration process denoted in their contract allowed for the review. And if their history showed the inconsistency in punishment, then the case was Chrysler's to lose. And surely, if there is prior history of workers drinking on the job and all they got was a suspension, then they probably aren't THAT concerned about the issue. Of course, the punishment in this case was likely as a result of the negative PR. Their backs were against the wall here, but moreso because they allowed workers to return for the same problems before. This is less of an issue with unions than it is with Chrysler's decisions.

And yes Greg, the Daytona is dumb. The 300C is yummy though.

[Jesda]

SO MANY WORDS.

A labor union isn't an organic entity that forms and disengages like a voluntary club. It's an organizational structure protected heavily by state and federal laws.

Beyond the right of free association, new hires are compelled to join. They don't get to simply opt out and negotiate directly with their employer. It isn't like a Sam's Club membership, thus the controversial issue of union power and influence in American industries.

[Jesda]

Additionally, not all unions are the same. Many help to maintain safety and quality standards in addition to higher wages and increased job security.


The UAW, however, takes on the characteristics of a parasite, latching on to its hosts and feeding hungrily without regard for whether the host survives.

[AZhitman]

A labor union isn't an organic entity that forms and disengages like a voluntary club. Beyond the right of free association, new hires are compelled to join.

Know what else works this way? Street gangs.

Parallels can be drawn between exiting each.

10 years later, no one on this forum has presented a compelling argument in support of the UAW, and we've got some damn smart people here.

[AZhitman]

So if the union is gone, the company controls a much larger part of the business than the individuals.

God forbid the check-writer / risk-taker / responsibility-holder actually control their business. Blasphemy.

[C-Kwik]

SO MANY WORDS.

Sorry, didn't realize your mental capacity has a # of words limit.

A labor union isn't an organic entity that forms and disengages like a voluntary club. It's an organizational structure protected heavily by state and federal laws.

It is protected by laws for very good reason. Before such laws existed and perhaps to a lesser extent, even after such laws existed, violence and intimidation against union workers was a real problem.

Beyond the right of free association, new hires are compelled to join. They don't get to simply opt out and negotiate directly with their employer. It isn't like a Sam's Club membership, thus the controversial issue of union power and influence in American industries.

Sure. And I often struggle with points on both sides of right-to-work laws for that very reason. But in the end, such laws are generally backed by those trying to limit union power. Not to empower employee choices. If there was a way to do the latter without it being a veiled attempt at the former, than I'd be on board no problem.

[audtatious]

The irony about the Hostess situation that the end result is the result of a free market mechanism. That is, the workers would not agree to work for the terms Hostess offered and Hostess refused the terms the union offered. Thus, no agreement was reached. Hostess decided it was better to sell.

Understand, I don't necessarily like unions. But I'll object to any laws that would stifle their ability to negotiate items that any other employees can bargain for with their employer. I've said this before. Unions were born of a free market. They should be allowed to exist in it as well. In a way, perhaps the Hostess situation needed to happen....if only to bring some balance back to the eyes of other unions and certain realities they may be facing in terms of negotiations.

Except we don't really have a free market. Unions were born at a time when we didn't have such a law structure and company owners really screwed their employees. Today, not so much. There are tons of laws and regulations on the books to protect the employee. Some unions, like the UAW and SEIU, are now huge lobbyists with a mandated infusion of dues off the back of others who's sole responsibility is to themselves and not the minions who have to pay them.

[audtatious]

Before such laws existed and perhaps to a lesser extent, even after such laws existed, violence and intimidation against union workers was a real problem.

Now we constantly see the opposite, where union workers use violence and intimidation to keep things the same.

[AZhitman]

Who cares what they WERE meant for? And who CARES what the political leanings are of the opposition? And who CARES that the goal is to weaken union strangleholds? That's the point.

The bottom line is this: The workers in MI are griping that a law was passed that prohibits workers from being FORCED to contribute mandatory dues to labor unions in order to gain employment (regardless of whether or not they are members of a union) and the law ALSO prohibits employers from firing workers if they don't join a union.

You'd think the Obamallamas would be ecstatic.

Instead, they're arguing against freedoms. WTF. Apparently, they all need a Daddy, because they're incapable of navigating the world in their big boy pants. Boo hoo.

They're too stupid to comprehend that this law does NOT end collective bargaining. It also does NOT increase pension contributions. it also does NOT demand increased health care benefit payments from union workers. It simply frees them from bondage to the whims of a Union boss.

Why should someone be forced to pay into a system that may hold different political views than them? What's the benefit?

And if you think all those dues are going towards increasing salaries and making things better for workers, you;re drinking the Kool-Aid. Most of that money goes towards political maneuvering.

According to CNBC's annual list of the Best States for Business, nine of the top 10 are right-to-work states.

"Oh, great, that benefits the business owner." Wah. Happy business owners, unfettered by a bunch of uber-entitled goons with political aspirations, can reward workers who further the bottom line - and in turn, hire more workers (and take steps to make working for them much more attractive).

So, what are they pissed about? I don't even think THEY know, because they're not economists, they're not business owners, and they're just regurgitating the same tired crap their grandpappy used to spew.

There's no place in American business in 2013 for hamstringing companies to burdensome union contracts, and there's no need for mandatory dues and labor union representation.

Maybe now, with the free market opening up, Detroit will attract some new businesses and avoid bankruptcy. California would do well to follow suit.

[AZhitman]

If you paid any attention to what I wrote in the rest of my post

I did. Just because I don't agree doesn't mean I didn't read it. It wasn't a compelling argument, which is totally out-of-character for you.

Employers dealing with individual employees have a lot of power in negotiation.

As it should be.

Where the negotiation then falls apart is when the "investor" doesn't feel the reward is worth the investment into its employees.

Again, as it should be. When a GM factory JANITOR pulls $47K a year ($160K a year in salary+ERE), he's NOT worth it.

So there is a built in check and balance for the union.

Collective bargaining didn't go away with this law.

Supporters of this make it out like it's returning people to indentured servitude. It's ludicrous.

[MinisterofDOOM]

Who cares what they WERE meant for?

Hear, hear.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Intention is the fool's excuse. "I didn't mean to." Sounds like an excuse a 5-year old kid uses after he breaks something expensive. Intention doesn't fix what's broken. Question is: did he learn from it.

[C-Kwik]

Except we don't really have a free market. Unions were born at a time when we didn't have such a law structure and company owners really screwed their employees. Today, not so much. There are tons of laws and regulations on the books to protect the employee. Some unions, like the UAW and SEIU, are now huge lobbyists with a mandated infusion of dues off the back of others who's sole responsibility is to themselves and not the minions who have to pay them.

If you are suggesting that the US economy is not a pure free market, then I'm with you. But the semantics of that statement has no relevance to what I have stated.

Surely, Unions aren't needed as much in the regard of worker safety and working conditions. But do they not push the boundary of how much their members can get from their employers? Perhaps making the working conditions and/or safety better than the minimum standards or better than would exist on the basis of potential litigation alone? Perhaps they can offer some level of representation and ensure the employment contract can offer a way to protest (without the expense of court) when an employer dishes out a punishment that is worse for one set of employees than another who made the same infraction (sound familiar?). The relevance of a union is subject to where its members set the bar.

As for being lobbyists, sure. But do you not think corporations and large business do not have their own lobbyists? Again, its not an unfair fight...

[AZhitman]

But do they not push the boundary of how much their members can get from their employers?

Yep. Which makes for a resentful and threatened employer. Not the way to get what you want - Not sustainably.

Perhaps making the working conditions and/or safety better than the minimum standards or better than would exist on the basis of potential litigation alone?

Nah. Not if they're overpaid, slacking off to stay beneath an agreed-upon union-mandated production threshold. Screw 'em.

Perhaps they can offer some level of representation and ensure the employment contract can offer a way to protest (without the expense of court) when an employer dishes out a punishment that is worse for one set of employees than another who made the same infraction (sound familiar?).

Already exists. It's called the EEOC, and they don't play around - I deal with them daily.

As for being lobbyists, sure. But do you not think corporations and large business do not have their own lobbyists? Again, its not an unfair fight...

Why's it gotta be a fight? Y'know, sometimes, if you make yourself indispensable, and you're not being a colossal PITA, people of means can be VERY generous. It's called retention, and employee satisfaction - And you get a lot more of that through good intentions and effort than through threats and intimidation.

I'll tell you why it has to be a fight: Because just like 100% of workers in America, everyone thinks they're underpaid. And the entitlement attitude that the UAW has fostered has gotten absurd. No, the GM janitor is NOT worth $47K a year. Sorry. Don't like it? Go sell shoes.

[C-Kwik]

Who cares what they WERE meant for? And who CARES what the political leanings are of the opposition? And who CARES that the goal is to weaken union strangleholds? That's the point. .

Sorry, there have been a few posts since so I don't know what the first question is referring to anymore. I'm not sure where the second question came from. I didn't mention political leanings. I do care about the last question for reasons I've stated already.

The bottom line is this: The workers in MI are griping that a law was passed that prohibits workers from being FORCED to contribute mandatory dues to labor unions in order to gain employment (regardless of whether or not they are members of a union) and the law ALSO prohibits employers from firing workers if they don't join a union. You'd think the Obamallamas would be ecstatic.

Instead, they're arguing against freedoms. WTF. Apparently, they all need a Daddy, because they're incapable of navigating the world in their big boy pants. Boo hoo.

They're too stupid to comprehend that this law does NOT end collective bargaining. It also does NOT increase pension contributions. it also does NOT demand increased health care benefit payments from union workers. It simply frees them from bondage to the whims of a Union boss..

Fundamentally I agree with you. But if this nothing to effect collective bargaining, then why did big business bother trying to push it through? The fact of the matter is, it does tend to weaken unions. And again, if there was a way to allow people not to have to submit to union membership while retaining union power, I'd be all for it.

Why should someone be forced to pay into a system that may hold different political views than them? What's the benefit?

And if you think all those dues are going towards increasing salaries and making things better for workers, you;re drinking the Kool-Aid. Most of that money goes towards political maneuvering.

I'm gonna ask you to back that statement with credible data.

According to CNBC's annual list of the Best States for Business, nine of the top 10 are right-to-work states.

Hey, if we made slavery legal in some states, I bet business there would boom too. I'm not saying business doesn't do better. But was there a similar study to show how workers make out in those same states?

"Oh, great, that benefits the business owner." Wah. Happy business owners, unfettered by a bunch of uber-entitled goons with political aspirations, can reward workers who further the bottom line - and in turn, hire more workers (and take steps to make working for them much more attractive).

I don't have a problem with businesses being successful. But why can't workers also try to make the best for themselves whether its through individual negotiation or collective bargaining?

Its also not necessarily a valid point that a business will automatically expand simply because their bottom line is good. That is still dictated by the supply and demand of their product. That is, if there is no further demand for a product or service that the business is providing, then adding more jobs isn't going to increase profits further.

So, what are they pissed about? I don't even think THEY know, because they're not economists, they're not business owners, and they're just regurgitating the same tired crap their grandpappy used to spew..

One might say, you are not a union employee. And in turn, ask what you think you know about unions. Logical flaw much?

[C-Kwik]

I did. Just because I don't agree doesn't mean I didn't read it. It wasn't a compelling argument, which is totally out-of-character for you.

My point was you took it out of context when you replied to it.

[C-Kwik]

Yep. Which makes for a resentful and threatened employer. Not the way to get what you want - Not sustainably.

On the other end is a resentful and threatened employee.

Nah. Not if they're overpaid, slacking off to stay beneath an agreed-upon union-mandated production threshold. Screw 'em.

Didn't you just say their dues aren't going towards making their salaries better? How do they become overpaid otherwise?

Already exists. It's called the EEOC, and they don't play around - I deal with them daily.

Sure, but do you really think they are the end all for such problems? My sister actually had to use her union rep (she's a teacher) years ago. The principal at the school she worked at had it out for her. Basically undermined her constantly and when my sister spoke out, the end result was that she was going to have a negative mark on her record. She couldn't really go up the chain as the superintendent of the district was a personal friend of the principal. So she went to her union. My sister is generally non-confrontational so she wasn't looking for a fight. Her best option turned out to be to quit her job so they seal her record. She's at a much better school now. So what would the EEOC be able to actually do? Do they pay for legal representation? Offer legal advice? Without going into a ton of detail, here's something directly off of EEOC's site:

"In some cases, if a charge appears to have little chance of success, or if it is something that we don't have the authority to investigate, we may dismiss the charge without doing an investigation or offering mediation."

Not to mention, its not a case of discrimination per se.

Why's it gotta be a fight? Y'know, sometimes, if you make yourself indispensable, and you're not being a colossal PITA, people of means can be VERY generous. It's called retention, and employee satisfaction - And you get a lot more of that through good intentions and effort than through threats and intimidation.

You assume that's always the case. Think an employer is going to pay more money and provide more benefit for a group of employees just because they ask as a group nicely? Some may. But then again, many would not.

I'll tell you why it has to be a fight: Because just like 100% of workers in America, everyone thinks they're underpaid. And the entitlement attitude that the UAW has fostered has gotten absurd. No, the GM janitor is NOT worth $47K a year. Sorry. Don't like it? Go sell shoes.

So demanding that a business share more of the profits that the workers helped make is an entitlement now? You throw it around like McCarthy did with the word communist.

[AZhitman]

And again, if there was a way to allow people not to have to submit to union membership while retaining union power, I'd be all for it.

And guess who would be opposed?

The Union bosses.

But was there a similar study to show how workers make out in those same states?

Actually, there has been...

"First of all, economic studies are mixed on whether workers are better off in right-to-work states. Some researchers have found that wages are lower in the 23 states banning closed shops — $19 an hour versus $22, according to this 2011 study — and those states have lower levels of employer-sponsored pensions and health insurance. But it’s difficult to correct for the fact that right-to-work states tend to be in the South, where educational levels are lower and there’s a shorter history of attracting factories and high-wage industrial jobs.

Supporters point to studies that show right-to-work states have higher economic growth rates, meaning more jobs and opportunity for all workers. Michigan’s private non-farm employment has fallen 19% since 2000, according to the Census Bureau, while employment in right-to-work Texas has risen 9.5%."

I can tell you this: entire swaths of Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee (and other states) have been "reborn". Workers are seeing money they'd NEVER have been able to earn previously, thanks to "foreign car" manufacturing. Bex and I have witnessed it (remember, she's from TN, and I grew up in AL / MS).

But why can't workers also try to make the best for themselves whether its through individual negotiation or collective bargaining?

CB wasn't impacted. Why would anyone support something that LIMITS freedoms? Forcing someone to be a member of a club to keep their job is all kinds of wrong - Especially when you ALSO take money out of their paycheck. What if they're perfectly happy with their working conditions? No refund for them.

In Communications Workers vs. Beck, SCOTUS ruled that workers can’t be forced to pay for anything other than the costs of collective bargaining, and representation in grievances. It's unconstitutional to force employees to pay dues for political activities they may disagree with. I think you'd agree.

Its also not necessarily a valid point that a business will automatically expand simply because their bottom line is good.

No, you're right. But that's a "what if". It IS highly likely that employers will be resentful of outside influences and strongarm tactics that strangle their ability to work collaboratively with their laborers.

One might say, you are not a union employee. And in turn, ask what you think you know about unions.

They could... at the risk of getting schooled.

I said it before: Right-to-work laws DO NOT affect the rights of employees to form unions or engage in collective bargaining. I deal with the Union here in AZ (a RTW state) frequently.

What this law DOES do, that the UAW hates, is it forces union officials to come up with a wage / benefit package that workers are willing to pay for - and if they;re happy with their current salary / benefits, it's a hard sell. See the problem here? The UAW is NOT happy about that. They'd rather bully and bluster, because they have no substance.

With all that said, Chano, I understand you're not defending the UAW. I also get that you're on the fence and want everyone to "play nice" in the sandbox. But that position assumes that all employers, corporations, and private entities are evil.

Bottom line, all this law did is increase freedoms - for employees AND employers.

MI should be ECSTATIC with this. It will staunch the outflow of jobs to places like MS / TN / AL, where people can do the same job, for the same money, and not have to deal with the contentiousness. Why wouldn't MI embrace it? The UAW is cutting off its nose in a desperate attempt, not to spite its face, but to remain relevant.

[AZhitman]

Her best option turned out to be to quit her job so they seal her record. She's at a much better school now.

And if she couldn't do that without representation, she's not too bright. Who's to say she was in the right? Before you bare teeth, no one cares that she's a relative - she's an employee, being used as an example here.

So what would the EEOC be able to actually do? Do they pay for legal representation? Offer legal advice?

You'll have to educate yourself on that one. Every employer has an EEOC coordinator whose job it is to investigate and respond to EEOC complaints. Even non-discrimination issues make their way to the EEOC, and it's in the employer's best interest to head off potential issues before they reach that point. Again, I'm the guy that investigates the issues and responds to the EEOC (and beyond). 2000 employees could cost us a LOT of money if they're not kept happy.

You assume that's always the case.

And the UAW assumes it's NEVER the case.

So demanding that a business share more of the profits that the workers helped make is an entitlement now?

I laugh at the notion that employees make "demands". In a free market, if you don't like the package, leave. There are a TON of laws in place to make sure workers are safe, compensated, treated fairly (note - fair doesn't mean equal, never has, never will) and have a voice. NO ONE has taken that away. The people protesting in MI don't seem to comprehend that.

But, you keep arguing that people should be forced to pay for something they don't believe in, or pay to keep their job. I reject that notion as a free American. And I'll reject it on your behalf too, if you're a worker who can't comprehend what it means.

[gwoods]

100% with Hitman on this one, I have been involved in ocean transportation in one way or another since 1999 and the union is a huge problem. The local 63 clerk strike that crippled the 10 of the 14 steamship terminals in Long Beach last week was the result of crazy union demands. For example you can check a containers status online, clerks want you to have to call them to get the status.

[AZhitman]

If people keep putting the ball on the tee, I'll keep bouncing it off the scoreboard.

[Jesda]

It is protected by laws for very good reason. Before such laws existed and perhaps to a lesser extent, even after such laws existed, violence and intimidation against union workers was a real problem.

Violence wasn't legal either, but that didn't stop law enforcement from participating in intimidation. Government is a peculiar thing.


This story only reminds Nissan, VW, BMW, Kia, and Mercedes-Benz employees in the south why the UAW's influence should be resisted. Germany's auto unions are far more functional.

[AZhitman]

Correct.

Oh, and this: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... an/?page=1

Terrorists broke into the compound at Benghazi, terrorists break into the Senate chamber in Lansing.

These nitwits need to get a grip - I said it before, they have NO CLUE what they're pissed about, just that they're not getting their way.

[AZhitman]

Why should someone be forced to pay into a system that may hold different political views than them? What's the benefit?

And if you think all those dues are going towards increasing salaries and making things better for workers, you're drinking the Kool-Aid. Most of that money goes towards political maneuvering.

I'm gonna ask you to back that statement with credible data.

Seven of the top 10 organizations giving to super-PACs were unions, with combined contributions of $67 million, according to the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics.