Wednesday, April 8, 1998 | 10:40 a.m.
CHARLES MUTH has usually appeared to be the most calm among the people assuming some leadership roles in the Nevada Republican Party. I've always enjoyed his ability to swap jokes and, at the same time, disagree with people on issues. When compared to some of his colleagues now running the GOP, Muth has always appeared to be the voice of moderation with answers for tough questions. Muth's voice from the eye of the storms created by the others was easy to appreciate when trying to understand what was going on in the state GOP.
Last week, Muth became part of the political storm created by the wind of people who thrive on extremism. He put out a news release that attacked Nevada AFL-CIO leader Claude "Blackie" Evans personally. The release is about as vitriolic as any ever produced by either political party in this state. Even after reading it twice, I found it difficult to believe that Muth had written this attack. It went far beyond anything that we have heard coming from the recent county convention.
Muth called Evans a liar, greedy and a power-hungry bully. This was triggered by a letter Evans sent to legislators and will probably go out to all candidates for office this year. Labor wants to know how office holders and candidates feel about issues that affect its members. This is a common practice and similar letters will go out from business, religious, recreation, education, conservation and other special-interest groups to all viable candidates. The letters are usually followed with an opportunity for candidates to be interviewed by the leaders of the special-interest group.
Evans' letter, dated March 30, 1998, follows:
"As the Nevada State AFL-CIO begins our process for endorsing and supporting candidates for political office, there are a few questions we need to have answered by candidates.
"As you may or may not know, we in the labor movement are fighting for our political voice in the halls of Congress, the Nevada State Legislature, city and county entities.
"We respectfully request your written position on the anti-worker petition that has been promoted by some anti-union individuals and the Liberty Caucus of the Republican party.
"We also request you inform us of your opinion on Nevada workers' rights to join and form unions if they so desire and have the right to collective bargaining in their unions.
"Please be aware that your written response or lack of may be released to our 150 affiliated local unions.
"Personal best wishes."
Muth, Nevada Republican Liberty Caucus leader, calls the initiative the "Workers Rights Initiative" or the "Paycheck Protection Plan." It, as does California's Proposition 226, constitutionally requires individual union workers to approve the use of any of their dues for political campaigns. The same limits aren't put on any other groups, organizations or corporations. Despite this, Muth says the proposed initiative is friendly toward workers and a matter of personal freedom.
Sandra Feldman, president of the American Federation of Teachers, sees it more as a campaign to deny working people a voice in politics. She writes:
"My union, the American Federation of Teachers, spends only a few dollars ($4.17) a year of a member's dues on political and legislative activities. But we've been able to make some important contributions to the public debate on education issues like higher academic standards, smaller class size and zero tolerance for school violence.
"This new government requirement would burden us with the costs of collecting pledge cards and maintaining records for hundreds of thousands of members every year. Instead of protecting people who do not want to contribute to their unions' political activities, these so-called fairness campaigns would disenfranchise those who do.
"Of course, unions seek to influence elections, legislation and public policy on behalf of their members. But corporations, business groups and other membership organizations, like the National Rifle Association or Handgun Control Inc., do exactly the same thing -- they all spend stockholders' or members' money on political activities. Indeed, business interests spend a lot more money than unions. According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, the difference in the last election cycle was an enormous 11 to 1. But only unions would be required to jump through the financial hoops set up by Prop. 226 and other similar legislation. Is this the kind of level playing field we expect from democracy?
"The groups and individuals who are funding and leading this campaign would like to shut unions up because, on most issues, we fundamentally disagree. But democracy works by giving opposing sides a chance to be heard in a fair and open debate. And what is wrong with the way our political process is currently operating will not be cured by silencing the unions that represent working men and women."
Feldman's views don't attack any individual but provide grist for an intelligent discussion. Come to think about it, Evans' letter to candidates also didn't make personal attacks.
Lighten up, Chuck.
archive
