Mark Udall's Cynical Sponsorship of Anti-Secret Ballot Bill Out of Step

A new national poll from American Solutions finds:

We discovered that 79% of the American people support a worker’s right to a federally supervised secret ballot election when deciding whether or not to join a union.

The tri-partisan agreement to defend this right is overwhelming, as 77% of Republicans, 82% of Democrats, and 79% of independents believe in protecting private ballots. Support for private ballots was so broad it also spanned every subgroup examined, including majorities of every age, race, geographic group and both genders.

The so-called "Employee Free Choice Act" (EFCA) before the Congress last year, and figures to be again this year, would deprive workers of the secret ballot. Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall's cynical sponsorship of the EFCA (he took big union contributions to put his name on the legislation, even though he claimed he had "serious reservations") already has him "out of step with Western values."

Now we have confirmation that Mark Udall is out of step with 8 out of 10 voting Americans, including 8 out of 10 members of his own Democratic Party. Currying favor with Big Labor bosses may have added money to Udall's campaign coffers, but it threatens to alienate him from many members of the electorate.

Udall Flip Flops on Trade

The Left-wing online journal Colorado Confidential wants to know why their preferred U.S. Senate candidate, Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall, has waffled on the issue of free trade agreements:

Colorado's House members voted unanimously in favor of the [Peru Free Trade Agreement], but some state residents don't understand why, because in 2005 four House members -- Democrats Diana DeGette, John Salazar and Mark Udall and Republican Tom Tancredo -- opposed CAFTA, a similar measure that relaxed trade regulations with a block of Central American countries, including Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua.

"It's just a mystery," says Reed Kelly, a cattle rancher operating outside of Meeker, Colorado, on the Western Slope, when referring to the House of Representatives' vote on the Peru FTA.

Kelly joined the Western Organization of Research Councils, a rural advocacy organization based in Billings, Montana, to oppose the Peru agreement.

"I really can't quite understand it," Kelly says. "This is basically just an expansion of NAFTA and CAFTA, and if there were reasons to vote against CAFTA, those reasons are even greater for the Peru FTA."

Trade agreements like NAFTA and its extension, CAFTA, are no stranger to controversy. Numerous organizations have opposed the measures due to their more relaxed labor, agricultural and environmental regulations, which have led to an outsourcing of jobs from the U.S. and allegations of workers' rights abuses in places such as Mexico, among other issues.

Kelly says he's personally experienced the effects of the government's free-trade agreements on the ranching industry, where cheaper beef imports have marginalized beef producers on the Western Slope.

"There are a lot less of us in business," Kelly says, claiming that it's getting harder to afford hay costs for ranching because of the lowered prices for beef that have occurred under the agreements. Particularly, Kelly is concerned that with the passage of the Peru FTA, Brazil, a prominent beef producer, will be able to flood the market through Peru, due to inadequate rules on labeling a product's country of origin.

It speaks volumes when your own friends and supporters can't figure out where you stand on an issue like free trade. But not surprising for someone who has been caught selling his vote before. Maybe Udall should start preparing for next year's coming Senate campaign by debating himself.

Udall Selling His Vote - Again

Casual observers would never guess that Mark Udall is running to be Senator of all of Colorado when he issues a press release that announces that he will vote to cut and run from Iraq at a time when the surge is obviously working:

Tonight U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, D-Moveon.org, will vote for legislation that requires redeployment in Iraq to begin within 30 days of the bill’s passage and sets a goal of bringing home most U.S. soldiers from Iraq by December 15, 2008.

This is exactly the MoveOn.org position, and we took the liberty of slightly modifying his press release to reflect the people he most wants to be seen as representing, or more likely, the people who are most willing to donate to his campaign if he takes their position.

He even admits in his press release that voting for the bill is a bad idea:

However, while this bill sends the right message – that our troops cannot remain in Iraq indefinitely – regrettably, it does not send it in the best way, because it will be supported almost exclusively by Democrats, and the president has already promised to veto it.

This is the second time we have caught Mark Udall selling his vote for campaign contributions. Recall that he went so far as to sponsor a labor bill that he claimed he didn't agree with and then immediately collected $75,000 in campaign contributions from labor unions.

Udall Votes To Condemn MoveOn's Petraeus Ad, Nutroots Balks

Moonbat Diana DeGette (D-CD 1) gets mad props for her "guts" (which are easy to have in an impenetrable district). Meanwhile Mark Udall, prepping for his Senatorial run to the middle, has earned the ire of the far left, some of whom are promising to withhold their donations:

I received a fundraising request from Mark Udall today.

America desperately needs leadership that will elevate our public debate and reflect the best that our country has to offer. As my track record as Congressman shows, I'm committed to practical, bipartisan solutions to our most pressing issues:

*Finding a way to responsibly leave Iraq: I opposed this war from the start, and I will exhaust every opportunity to bring this conflict to a close so we can rebuild our army and refocus our national security efforts to more effectively fight terrorism.

Rep. Udall, this vote does not reflect the best our country has to offer. It was a waste of resources.

You say you'll exhaust every opportunity to bring the conflict to a close. Is this vote a part of that effort? Are our forces any closer to redeploying now that you and your fellow Democrats have once again succumbed to the Republicans distraction tactics? No sir, they are not.

I will not send money to your campaign when you vote like this.

Stand up to the obstructionists and distractors, Rep. Udall. Stand up for the people of this country who have overwhelmingly expressed their will that the occupation end. Then, sir, I will gladly donate to your campaign.

Udall's purely symbolic bipartisan efforts--attempting to move him to the "middle" in the minds of independents/unafilliateds--have ticked off his key liberal-left constituency and traditional base.

How to read this? They expect Udall to live up to his Boulder liberal reputation and defend the MoveOn Petraeus ads.

Union Campaign Contributions and Udall's "Serious Reservations"

A watcher has published a letter from Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall to constituent Ralph Shnelvar about Udall's co-sponsorship of the ill-named Employee Free Choice Act, and asks the question: "Whose vote is really for sale?"

But then again, one can raise the same question from Udall's House of Representatives floor speech on the same bill:

Madam Speaker, I will vote for this bill. It can help working people, and it will send a strong message that we need a National Labor Relations Board committed to fairness in the workplace.

But as I said 2 years ago, I have serious reservations about lessening the role of the secret ballot in union elections. Workers should not be intimidated by pressure from either business or labor in making decisions about organizing a union.

However, it is clear that the NLRB has clearly failed to protect workers from intimidation and union-busting. That is why I support this bill even though it is far from perfect.

And while I support the rule because it allows the House to consider some meaningful amendments, I am disappointed that others were not included. For example, I thought we ought to have made changes to make the procedure for decertifying unions like those for establishing unions. We should also have considered setting deadlines for NLRB decisions.

I would hope those amendments, and others, maybe even a sunset clause, will be considered in the Senate not only because they could improve this legislation but because open debate on amendments might help reduce the divisions and polarization about this bill.

But the House should pass the bill, imperfect though it is, so the Senate can continue the process of reforming our labor laws to better protect workers' rights while also working towards balance, fairness, and objectivity in the way that the NLRB must do its job.

Rep. Udall had "serious reservations" about taking away workers' right to the secret ballot. But what role did $75,000 in campaign contributions from Big Labor play in quieting his conscience and downplaying his "serious reservations"? In any case, the Boulder Democrat sounds very conflicted.

Even the reliably liberal Denver Post editorial board called Udall on the carpet for his co-sponsorship of the bill:

And Udall, who wants to be Colorado’s next senator, should know that elections here are won by wooing over moderate, independent-minded voters. Casting votes like this won’t help. The proposal died only after Senate Democrats could attract only one Republican vote, from Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter, to stop a GOP filibuster against the bill.

The misnamed Employee Free Choice Act also would have denied workers the right to a secret ballot on the question of whether they want to be represented by a union at all. The measure, which passed the House 241-185, is sure to be back because organized labor has made it the top priority in the new Democratic-controlled Congress.

But the tenets of the bill aren’t Western values, and our lawmakers should oppose this unprecedented intrusion of federal power into the collective bargaining process and private workplaces.

I can almost hear the campaign ad now: "Mark Udall... in line with a special interest agenda, out of step with Western values."

Udall Opened up to Attack for Votes Paid for by Union Leaders

A charter school operator makes $4,600 in campaign contributions to well-known school choice supporter Bob Schaffer after Schaffer cast a vote as member of the State Board of Education in favor of the operator's charter school application. And the Left goes into full attack mode, pumped up with manufactured outrage.

Boulder liberal Mark Udall accepts hundreds of thousands of dollars from union leaders before he sponsors and lobbies Congress to pass an onerous bill (HR 800) at their behest, one that would strip workers of the right to secret ballot elections. And you can hear the crickets chirping.

Well, almost. One mixed-up liberal commenter at the Dead Governors site categorized the contributions as follows: "Udall is supported by hard working Americans." Only someone who isn't aware of (or supports) the coercive tactics unions use to raise political funds could make such a naive statement.

Interestingly, most Americans do get it, and do see the problem with Udall's campaign contributions and his support of HR 800. A 2006 poll conducted by Zogby (no link available) found that 55 percent of hard-working Americans believe that "labor unions have too much influence on our political leaders and public policy."

Udall happens to be on the wrong side of that one, choosing the influence of union leaders over the majority of Americans who support the rights of workers to associate but reject the coercive tactics and political corruption that compels some people to furnish funds for causes and candidates they do not support.

So, while some on the Left would like to downplay their own hypocrisy and the point of attack they've opened up for their own candidate, the issue won't go away.

Udall Undercuts Enforcement of White-Collar Crime

Boulder liberal Mark Udall has cast his lot with the Democrat caucus and corrupt union leaders at the expense of law enforcement and defrauded workers. Udall voted to defeat an attempt that would have spared the modest budget of the Office of Labor Management Standards (OLMS) from draconian cuts.

So, apparently, OLMS was a highly ineffective and wasteful branch of government, right? The Democrats just wanted a leaner and more efficient operation, right? Wrong on both counts. As John Fund noted in yesterday's Opinion Journal:

In the past six years, the Office of Labor Management Standards, or OLMS, has helped secure the convictions of 775 corrupt union officials and court-ordered restitution to union members of over $70 million in dues.

And some other recent successes of OLMS highlighted by Fund:

Just last week Willie Haynes, a member of the Saginaw, Mich., City Council who also served as a United Auto Workers financial secretary, pleaded guilty to falsifying his union local's reports. In May, Chuck Crawley, a former Teamster's local president in Houston, was sentenced to 6 1/2 years in prison for stuffing a ballot box so he could be elected president of his union local and embezzling dues money.

It wasn't as though overall cash for the Labor Department is strapped, and that Congress was forced to make a tough decision. Rather, OLMS was the only office with its budget adversely affected, as the whole Department anticipates a $935 million boost in total appropriations. The problem for Congressional Democrats and many of their political backers was that OLMS worked too well.

Some white collar criminals who happen to live illicitly off the hard-earned money of various workers are breathing a little easier tonight. Thanks to Mark Udall and his Democrat colleagues, they're less likely to be caught and prosecuted.

If the Republicans were in charge and the budget for enforcement of corporate white-collar crime had been slashed, your ears would have bled with the piercing howl of righteous liberal outrage. And they would have a very strong case. But now, it's their silence that's deafening.

Cross posted at Mount Virtus