Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: About last night
Next Post: Reader coments closed for the weekend
Posted in:
* Fran Eaton’s latest column talks about the new, far more conservative Illinois Republican Party platform…
The Illinois GOP also supported prohibiting the government payroll system from collecting union dues from public employees — a key element in defusing powerful public-sector unions and a deterrent for Republican candidates who may be tempted to take campaign donations from those unions.
* The Question: Should state and local government payroll systems be barred from collecting union dues from public employees? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 12:50 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: About last night
Next Post: Reader coments closed for the weekend
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Enough already! I agree public sector unions are too powerful, but allowing freeloaders to benefit from union representation is a bridge too far.
Comment by Louis Howe Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 1:06 pm
Freeloaders? The workers should have the right to decide how to spend their hard-earned money as they see fit. If they don’t want to belong to a union, they should not have it forced upon them.
Comment by Burning Down da House Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 1:10 pm
ironically, both of the first two comments do not address the platform plank as stated…
It doesn’t say make membership optional (right to work) it says the government can’t collect union dues.
Seems to me regardless of ‘right to work’ or not the employer (in this case government) should be able to collect dues. Isn’t that how it works in the private sector?
Comment by OneMan Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 1:14 pm
Public sector unions are already outgunned by magnitudes on money from by high dollar GOP contractors and other anti-worker forces. Given this and the state’s hostility toward its rank and file workforce, it’s in everyone’s best interest for regular employees to have some protection.
Comment by Honestly Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 1:14 pm
YES. Why should taxpayer-funded govt be the bagman in collecting mandatory union dues? It’s not something I want my tax money going to.
Let union members contribute voluntarily to the union using union resources.
Comment by BFro Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 1:15 pm
BDH…Then they shouldn’t get union scale, and work for whatever they can get on their own.
Comment by Louis Howe Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 1:16 pm
So in the name of personal freedom and limited government, some politicians want to have government mandate that individuals can’t pay dues to a voluntary organization. Riiight.
Never ceases to amaze how hypocritical some people will be in pursuit of their real agenda.
Comment by Reality Check Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 1:17 pm
More people will vote in this poll than will read the IL GOP platform.
Comment by too obvious Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 1:22 pm
Not only should government not collect the dues for unions on behalf of workers. I belong to various organizations none of which does my private employer deduct from my paycheck. A union member should make their payment directly to their union. If they fear having to make that effort or decision monthly then there are options for auto pay from banks and credit unions.
Comment by Bitterman Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 1:27 pm
The Republicans have tried this all around the country and it isn’t working anywhere. In California, they led a huge petition drive on the back of corporate money only to see it crash and burn.
My problem with this plank is that they’re trying to stage the same techniques used in Wisconsin. All that led to were two massive recall efforts that cost the state a lot of money. This is Illinois. Unions are here and everyone needs to figure out how to work with them. Cutting them out is not going to work.
Comment by Lakewood-Balmoral Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 1:29 pm
As soon as publicly-traded companies are prohibited from making political contributions, I’ll change my vote.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 1:31 pm
So this is the next step in busting unions then?
Claiming that any employer who has to deduct union dues out of a person’s paycheck is being forced to be the BAGMAN for the union?
So does that also mean my employer is the BAGMAN for the IRS when my employer sends a portion of my paycheck to Uncle Sam?
Or that my employer is the BAGMAN for my insurance company when my health insurance premium gets deducted from my paycheck and is sent to the insurance company?
Comment by hisgirlfriday Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 1:37 pm
If you’re going to allow public sector unions, then you should allow dues to be collected on their behalf. In this technological age, I believe the actual cost is minimal. And if it is a fiscal concern, than the state can make it an issue in the collective bargaining agreement. Also, if it’s a fiscal issue then all United Way and other charity withholding needs to stop as well.
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 1:39 pm
NO
Fran is starting to sound like the Catholics…we need a special loophole for everything.
As long as employers are collecting for United Way, insurance companies, retirement board and a lot of other charities why not allow union members to pay dues this way?
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 1:57 pm
OneMan hit the nail on the head!
Also, just as a transit benefit withheld from a paycheck on a pre-tax basis, union dues are a tax deductible expense for workers.
Therefore, any arguments suggesting that automatic banking payments or direct payments by the worker which do n0ot also oppose the elimination of all similar types of pre-tax witholdings are basically full for $#!+.
Comment by Brendan Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 2:01 pm
Funny how the Republicans — you know, the party most likely to say “Government should be run like a business” — want to prohibit something that’s typical and normal in the private sector.
If the concern is about the state spending money processing union dues, fine: why not propose charging an administrative to cover the cost?
And the reason that the union due is and should be a payroll deduction is precisely the free rider problem noted above. No one wants to pay union dues, but everyone wants to work under a union wage scale. You can’t have both.
Comment by the Other Anonymous Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 2:01 pm
Yes! I was an union electrical contractor and it was our employees duty to pay their union dues.
Why should the state be responsible of the paper
work.These are grown-up people, enough of the nanny state. The pols allow any thing, because not a dime comes out of their pocket.
Comment by mokenavince Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 2:03 pm
If AFSCME will not personally let me vote on my State union leaders, There should not be forced union dues. So the state or local government should not deduct these from my pay. What we have right now is Union dues taken out of your pay and Union members not having a voice. Union leaders should be elected by the members not a committee. If the Leaders get the Dues every month and can’t be voted out, why should they worry about anything.
Comment by Bob Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 2:16 pm
I’d think the unions wouldn’t want the state to be the bagman. First come delayed payments, then the fund sweeps!
Comment by thechampaignlife Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 2:18 pm
What percent of the workforce is unionized? Ten percent? Less.
If you don’t want to belong to a labor union, don’t apply for a job that’s unionized.
Anti-union people would have it that even if 100% of the people favor the union, the dues should not be collected b/c at some point in the future, some person might apply that doesn’t support the union.
Remember, employers get to pick who gets hired. But it doesn’t have to be this way.
If you’re gonna tinker with the idea of having the whole shop pay dues, let’s allow unions to veto people getting hired.
That is, new hires would have to pledge fealty to the union before being hired. Then dues can be optional.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 2:20 pm
Think of the cost government if it has to deal with wage garnishment fur unions whose members are delinquent in paying their dues.
Comment by Observing Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 2:20 pm
The unions are a private affinity group and should be responsible for collecting their own dues.
I belong to a number of organizations and have never had an employer withhold membership payments for those organizations. In a few cases I was reimbursed because it was a benefit to the employer.
If the dues are tax deductible, they remain so regardless if the dues are payroll deducted or not.
Comment by Plutocrat03 Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 2:28 pm
No, agree with Observing about the wage garnishment headache. Plus, it’s just too oblique a reference to the real intent of the platform to merit any reinforcement.
Comment by Earnest Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 2:33 pm
in the private sector it works both ways.
We have two sets of dues. Our quarterly dues, which the member pays themselves. You can pay each quarter, or pay it all at once for the year.
next we have the working dues. It is 3% of the gross, up to 2000 hours annually. The dues are deducated from the check by the employer and remitted monthly witht he payments for other benefits such as healthcare, pension, apprenticeship funds and so on.
since the report comes from the employer as to how many hours the employee works, it would be more complicated to have the union try and collect the proper amount, as they woul dhave to wait for the employer’s report, then create a bill, then send it out, then wait for payment and so on.
This is just another plot by the right wing kooks who don’t like unions for what ever reason and want to cause themt o spend more money chasing their own in an effort to choke off any revenue stream they have.
The republicans that voted for this should be ashamed of them selves and like another commneter pointed out, shoul dbe banned fom uttering the phrase of running governement like a business.
What they want to do is run government like a union busting company in a right to work for less state and create the ne republican brand of welfare freeloaders.
Comment by Todd Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 2:39 pm
I never remember being able to deduct my RNC dues when I was working.
Comment by Cincinnatus Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 2:40 pm
While collecting union dues is common in the private sector, many companies are stopping the practice. As a result, the union has to regularly go to its membership and ask them to pay their dues. This has resulted in two consequences. The first is intended in that the unions are getting less money. The second is unintended in that the union leadership has to prove their worth to its membership, meaning the union may be even more difficult to negotiate with.
Caterpillar stopped collecting union dues several years ago.
Comment by It's Just Me Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 2:40 pm
Union dues can be included under the Miscellaneous Deductions on Schedule A. The sum of that section that exceeds 2% of your AGI can be used as an itemized deduction, so union dues alone would not be deductible.
Comment by Ready To Get Out Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 2:58 pm
This is an old union busting tactic.
The “bagman” argument is a a straw man argument at it’s finest. Dues are taken out after your income has been taxed. This is a bargaining issue, not a legislative issue.
I see Fran is at neither the bargaining table nor in the halls of the Illinois legislature. Wonder where her hot air is going?
Comment by Dee Lay Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 2:59 pm
This was one of the reforms Walker instituted in WI. Union membership is down 38%. George Meany and FDR thought public service unions inconsistent with good government…
Comment by Cincinnatus Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 3:02 pm
@Cincinnatus -
What do you think FDR would say about Citizens United?
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 3:08 pm
Why stop at union dues? Why not include charitable contributions? Taxes? MCAP? Health insurance?
Its just a tactic to defund unions, nothing more or less.
Comment by AC Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 3:13 pm
many public sector employees are already disadvatnaged in collective bargaining by state statutes that forbid strikes. If collecting union dues is still commonplace in many private sector businesses, this courtesy should be extended to unions as to United Way and other charities and optional health care programs.
But I have no problem with such dues collection being a component of collective bargaining - something the unions have “give something to the other side” for.
Comment by Capitol View Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 3:13 pm
Why should taxpayers subsidize a union’s administrative costs? Does the union reimburse goverment for the costs of collection and administration?
Comment by Alexander Cut the Knot Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 3:16 pm
Yes, the government payroll system should be barred from collecting union dues. Membership will sharply decline, but I perfer the freedom to decide when to contribute to any political action group.
Comment by Y2D Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 3:20 pm
If Citizens United limited PACs he’d agree with the ruling since the first PAC every created and the first contribution ever made by a PAC was from the CIO in the 1944 election.
Comment by Cincinnatus Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 3:24 pm
I voted no. It’s easy and convenient for my dues to be deducted from my check. How much will save the state to not have to process my union dues? If it’s not much in savings, then there must be other motives.
I am very much against the idea that people should bargain for wages on their own and not have the choice of joining or forming unions. Income inequality is far too high in America. I’ve seen data that show declining union participation correlates with lower wages for middle class workers. I don’t think some bad bargaining agreements should be reason to strip unions. There are some bad of everything.
As we all know, there is a nationwide anti-union push by the new Republicans, with their very wealthy donors. So we replace one thing that seems oppressive with something else that is at least just as oppressive? We should seek an area that is as fair to all involved as possible. That’s hard work, and requires us to think and work, instead of resorting to simple, drastic solutions.
Comment by Grandson of Man Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 3:31 pm
God, that was poorly stated.
Citizens United lifted prohibitions on PAC contributions. FDR received the very first PAC contribution from the very first PAC ever created, by the CIO (a union).
Comment by Cincinnatus Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 3:33 pm
GoM,
Are you also against an employee being forced to join a union against his/her will as a condition of employment?
Comment by Cincinnatus Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 3:35 pm
Voted NO, my wife was a teacher, had union dues and family plan health insurance withheld by school. Since she is retired, I now have to take in a check each month to pay for my insurance, and when I asked, was told that direct deposit, automatic transfer, or etc. was not available.
Just don’t see that deducting dues is any more of a problem than health insurance, taxes, pensions, etc.
Comment by downstate commissioner Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 3:37 pm
Ok, let me muddy up this a little bit. As a union state employee I have the right not to pay union dues as the procedure stands currently. I can request to go what is called “fair share.” Granted, the amount deducted from my paycheck would only change by about 4 or 5 dollars, but I would no longer be a union member. I would not be able to vote in local union elections, etc. The catch here is the remaining amount of my dues, and the largest portion, would go to Council 31 and the International. I have the right now to request a refund of those dues that are used for political reasons I am not in favor of. I wish someone would just make it easier to get the latter money back.
Comment by Dave Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 3:38 pm
This is clearly an attack on unions. There are numerous pay codes already used in payroll systems across the state. Removing the codes would cost the state more than leaving them alone.
Comment by otownie Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 3:51 pm
I voted yes. There is no practical reason for employers in any organization to do this. In this day and age, it is easy for union members to auto-pay their union dues from their bank account, if they want to do so. The unions want employers to serve as their “collection agent” in order to streamline the process. Everyone knows that unions don’t work to benefit the employer or the taxpayer and resources/systems shouldn’t be used for their benefit.
Comment by Foxfire Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 4:05 pm
“GoM,
Are you also against an employee being forced to join a union against his/her will as a condition of employment?”
A person should have the right to not join a union, but the union should not be made to represent such a worker.
P.S. I participated in collective bargaining today: impact bargaining over office mergers. Two offices (including mine) will merge with a third office. We were able to get some concessions, which will improve the workplace quality of life. We have also agreed to have another bargaining session next month.
Comment by Grandson of Man Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 4:10 pm
==Citizens United lifted prohibitions on PAC contributions. ==
Cincinnatus, may I suggest you learn what you are speaking about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission
Citizens United (originally “Citizens United Not Timid”, get it?) opened the door for corporations to spend money directly on elections.
Political Action Committees always could spend money on elections. That should be obvious.
PACs however, had to abide by certain rules. After Citizens United, corporations are pretty free to play politics with secret sources of money. God Bless, the United Corporations of America!
Comment by Carl Nyberg Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 4:24 pm
I voted no, it’s all or none for me…why single out the unions? Let everyone write their own checks to the IRS, the State, Blue Cross, Social Security, etc.
Comment by Johnnie F. Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 4:37 pm
I do wonder if workers should have the right to choose.
Plus, it does seem odd that the General Assembly allows for the Government to take the money out of their checks, give that money to AFSME and then AFSME takes that money and gives it to people running for the General Assembly or spends it helping people win seats. That seems odd. Maybe money used for political purposes should not be collected through the State.
Comment by Ahoy! Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 4:40 pm
On the flip side, maybe the State could give me a raise equal to their share of my pension payment. At least that way I could ensure SERS gets the full payment for my earned pension.
Comment by Johnnie F. Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 4:42 pm
This should be a contract issue. If agreed to, then the employer should take out the dues. Cost is no more than any other computerized check process once it is set up - retirement, insurance, SS, HSA, garnishments, whatever. At the same time, the employee can automatically transfer payments of any kind once funds are deposited in a bank account. Union dues, credit card, local retailer, tuition, or church donation. Easily done. Technology has simply caught up to a formerly simple negotiation item.
Comment by zatoichi Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 4:44 pm
I dont know whose union dues are tax deferred. I know mine for afscme are not.
Comment by What if Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 4:52 pm
There is no real values or policy proposal here. This is just a GOP campaign tactic to win elections by reducing part of the traditional power base of the Dems.
Their economics don’t work, and their social stances are not supported by most Americans in opinion polls, so they try to undercut organizational support, muddy communications waters, and reduce access to the ballot by their opponents.
Comment by mark walker Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 4:55 pm
Carl- I’d add that Citizens United also allows for unions to spend directly on elections, just like corporations.
Comment by BFro Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 5:09 pm
By all means, why should government collect for someone else’s organization when most of the relationship is adversarial?
Comment by Shemp Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 5:29 pm
This is ridiculous. Leave it alone.
Comment by Cheryl44 Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 5:32 pm
Sorry, the phone rang and I hit Say it!
The GOP, not content with running a super conservative candidate against someone they could have beat for governor had they been smarter, are tacking more conservative?
This is the definition of insane.
Comment by Cheryl44 Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 5:34 pm
Cincinnatus -
FDR was not opposed to public unions. FDR was opposed to public unions having the right to strike.
Comment by tired of politics Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 5:45 pm
Two words: Administrative chargeback
(OK, maybe that’s supposed to be three words).
Sure AFSCME, we’ll collect your dues, but CMS is going to apply an administrative fee of, say, $2 to $3 billion for the processing and paperwork.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 5:48 pm
Certainly they should be barred.
What next…maybe I can get the state to pay my utility bill, my insurance, my car payment.
You want to pay to be in a Union, fine, but do it yourself through your own banking system.
Comment by Sunshine Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 5:51 pm
This is just union bashing. But, while on the subject of taking deductions from my paycheck how about not taking out the pension contribution. I’ll send the State a check (when they pay their share of the pension responsibilty)
Comment by rands Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 7:52 pm
I suppose its to late to discuss the end game of involuntary union dues going to candidates or caucuses for the benefit of the leaders(of the unions) personal gain? ie. board appointments that “pay”, pension perks, or maybe support by legislative party leaders when the union “leaders” are in need of “cover”. some local unions claim to be “lunchpail” yet do the members understand true labor support of legislators or are they led down the path of “captive audience” for the benefit of the unions elite? dues should be for general funding of the unions infrastructure not the diversion to political leverage. That should be voluntary to each union member and family. Maybe if that was the case more working families would show interest in election cycles rather than “shrug” to the union leaders conclusions. Not to mention in this economic environment I’m sure the households could use a little extra cash!
Comment by just sayin' Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 9:02 pm
Interesting that so many in the GOP seem to value freedom of contract, but think the government needs special help in order to negotiate with unions.
Any governmental entity is free to say no to any union demand. They don’t need legislation to give them a backbone. If you can’t negotiate a strong deal, you should not be in government.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 9:19 pm
FDR was against the right to strike for federal public employees, not to organize.
The lie has been a right-winger favorite for awhile now. It’s based on a willful misreading of a congratulatory letter FDR sent to the Federation of Federal Employees — the union that represented federal employees at the time.
The George Meany howler stems from one off-hand comment he made in 1955 about it being “impossible” to collectively bargain with government.
Yet he gladly presided over the AFL-CIO and collectively bargained with governments for AFSCME, American Federation of Teachers, firefighters, police officers, postal workers, etc.
These right-wingers really need to raise their game in the era of google.
Google it read it yourself.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 10:00 pm
Union busting- plain and simple. It’s also another tactic by the GOP to further create a gap between corporate America and the 99%. Enough people- quit watching Fox news!!!!
Comment by 61350 Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 10:30 pm
I have been involved in contract negotiations several times. From both Union and Management perspective. The one time I was involved in an initial contract negotiation, the union had two overriding concerns: Dues check off (withholding by the employer) and contract exclusivity (being recognized as the only entity management would deal with in contract issues). Management exchanged these two issues for the management clause (right to do whatever they wanted within institutional needs). In my opinion the union quit on their members as soon as these two items were agreed upon. We got everything else we (management) wanted after this. If the state wants to negotiate this issue out of the contracts after so many years, we will be in for a verrrrrry contentious contract discussion. Union will give up almost anything to keep dues check off. By the way, the union I negotiated with was AFSCME (on both sides).
Comment by papa2008 Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 10:39 pm
Rands, the state has made the full payment — in cash — the last two years. Time for you to pony up. Oh, and that also might be why there’ll be a lot of state layoffs, in order to cover state employee pension payments. AFSCME gets to choose between members and fringe benefits. Have fun with that.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 11:04 pm
Why should people who don’t pay union dues reap the same benefits as those who do? Freeloaders are bringing down the unions that have historically been the foundation of America’s middle class. While they may have lost their way and gotten greedy in the recent days, unions ARE an important part of the American system and do not deserve to be rendered powerless by Republican fat cats who cater to those with the highest incomes and lowest taxes.
Comment by nearNWsidejoe Thursday, Jun 14, 12 @ 11:11 pm
Not deducting dues is a union busting move. Period.
Comment by Robert M Roman Friday, Jun 15, 12 @ 5:08 am
Michelle - your right the state has made the payment for the last 2 years. So now they are only about 20 years behind.
Comment by rands Friday, Jun 15, 12 @ 6:23 am
No - Checkoff historically has been a major labor negotiation issue - Elimination by an end run ain’t right.
Comment by x ace Friday, Jun 15, 12 @ 8:24 am
Why are public unions so afraid of giving workers the right to pay their dues?
Comment by Ahoy! Friday, Jun 15, 12 @ 8:53 am
==In my opinion the union quit on their members as soon as these two items were agreed upon.== papa2008
papa2008 raises a point based on real world experience. Unions should be more accountable to the members.
And this is a challenge for union member in the two-party system.
Democrats tend to align with the union bosses. And in public sector unions in Illinois, the union bosses seem more like the political bosses than advocates for rank-and-file members.
Republicans use every problem with labor unions to advocate some policy that will make labor unions ineffective.
What we need are reforms that make union leadership more accountable and allow unions to present a unified front in negotiations.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Friday, Jun 15, 12 @ 9:01 am
This is a job or task that should be given to the unions themselves. Is it the job of the state or any government to take out for charitable concerns even with the permission of an employee? If the Heart Fund or the Salvation Army asked the state to start taking out charitable contributions from it’s employees that wished them to do so on a weekly or monthly basis, do you think that they should? I don’t! It ain’t their job, amigo. They can’t do what they are supposed to do now with just their normal basic functions. I may as well start asking the state to start bringing me my newspaper at the end of my driveway each morning since they seem to be eveybody’s errand boy. Amazing stuff that they ever got started doing it for the union’s leadership in the first place!
Comment by Phineas Fogg Friday, Jun 15, 12 @ 9:02 am
==Why are public unions so afraid of giving workers the right to pay their dues?== Ahoy!
Where is the labor required to collect dues from the members going to come from? Collecting dues from thousands of people will be a labor intensive process.
Of course, the people that hate unions would rather have unions expend labor collecting dues than filing grievances, negotiating contracts and doing political organizing.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Friday, Jun 15, 12 @ 9:07 am
== If the Heart Fund or the Salvation Army asked the state to start taking out charitable contributions from it’s employees that wished them to do so on a weekly or monthly basis, do you think that they should? ==
I have worked at places that have done just that. For the united way, a set of charities even the company PAC (along with suggested giving levels for the PAC based of your salary). All taken out of the check by the non-government employer. So it isn’t unheard of.
The feds do this now with the Federal Combined Campaign, you can even give to the NRA
http://www.nradefensefund.org/contribute-info.aspx
Comment by OneMan Friday, Jun 15, 12 @ 9:10 am