I've often wondered how this country tolerates Union extortion of its forced membership. In most states you have no right to refuse membership, (in some cases you are allowed to but have to pay a "fair share fee" which is only microscopically smaller than the dues. The vary nature of this is antagonistic to the values of most hard working Americans. Yet, having studied the industrial revolution i wonder if we want to do without unions.

I think it would be better if union members got to choose thier own dues. Union money should be paid to an outside organization, then the amount selected by the members should be given to the union, the rest returned to the member. this would essencially put the unions in the market places where they would have to earn the money.

All union leadlers, down to the lowest steward, should have their finances (all of them, reguardless of source) transparent to the membership, media, and public. As no one assumes these roles involuntarily, this should be simply a price to pay for leadership. That way the members could see the $50,000.00 month incomes of some of these leaders (California prison guard union president estimated earnings, not possible to confirm, as it is hidden in so many sources, so its probably only close, but certainly far more than the rank and file earn) while their own paychecks are hurt by the economy.

Union money to political candidates should be selected by each member contributing. You select the candidates you contribute to. I think most of this money would still go to the Democrats, but the hold of the extreme left on that party would be broken and the "blue dogs" could really be blue dogs, not "lap dogs." It would also put the Republican party in competition for this money, making them listen to the membership more.

Union money itself (not the individual contributions selected above, but the leaders contributions from general funds) should be no more than the cntribution of one single private citizen, and they should not be allowed to buy adds, unless with voluntary contrubutions, unless they buy add time for all candidates.

Public Employee's unoins should not be allowed to contribute to political candidates and elected officials, unless there contrats are ratified by a vote of the people. This would eliminate the control of both sides of a negotiating table. A few thousand dollars can buy millioins of dollars in contracts taxpayers cannot afford, but no union can afford to buy the votes of all the voters, especially in a large state.

There is nothing more American than orginizations like the American Civil Liberties Union, and the National Rifle Association, where individuals, and organizations contribute money voluntarily to caused they support, and nothing less American than stealing money from others (by vote, if not force, as union corruption has ran rampant in America since they were founded). McCain had it wrong. Organizations like the NRA and ACLU should be unlimited, as no one is forced into them, and if you do not like them you do not contrubute. If you do not like corporations contributing to these organizations, do not buy the products of that corporation. When Mr. Moneybags loses money he finds out why and reacts. If enough people do not buy from a car company which contributs to the ACLU (example) or a firearms company who contributes to the NRA (example to be fair) these companies react. If the market place does not support your own actions you are probable the one out of step with America.

This is a Center/Right country, and those people should have more say in politics than the extremists of either side. The national media insures that not to many truely far right politicians can be elected, but there is no such balance on the left. Just think of the extreme campaign against Sarah Palin, while commenting on Obama's pretty eyes (not to mention the cute giggles of the interviewers). We have never had a better example of bias in our history.