WASHINGTON — With an actor from “The Sopranos” portraying a union heavy, a new political commercial from a pro-business group being shown in Maine suggests that the Democratic Senate candidate in a competitive race is trying to infringe on the privacy of workers.þþThe advertisement, disputed by the candidate, is part of a large-scale effort by two independent advocacy groups to turn a relatively low-profile pro-labor vote in Congress into a major impediment for Democrats as they seek to expand their Senate majority.þþ“We have a very simple strategy,” said Mike Murphy, media adviser to the group behind the advertisement in Maine and one in Minnesota about the vote on a measure to make it easier to unionize American workplaces. “Let’s make it famous. It is a bad law.”þþThe two groups, which will not disclose the sources of money behind their campaigns, may spend as much as a combined $50 million by November. The extent of the media effort has sent Democrats scrambling for ways to respond to what they call misleading advertisements without getting thrown off their own message. Party leaders are also sharply critical of the secrecy behind the spending.þþ“The fact that these expenditures are not only so large but are undisclosed is extremely troubling,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, who said the groups “are trying to influence the elections with millions of dollars that the public can’t trace.”þþDemocrats also said the third-party initiative could backfire, angering workers who could see it as essentially equating union organizers with the mob.þþ“It is like organized labor equals organized crime equals Tom Allen, which couldn’t be further from the truth,” said Carol Andrews, a spokeswoman for Mr. Allen, the Democratic contender in Maine, where, she said, 67,000 workers belong to unions. “This is a bunch of big corporations who don’t want folks to be able to bargain for better pay and better benefits.”þþThe legislation that is the subject of the intensifying campaign is the Employee Free Choice Act, a labor-backed measure that passed the House but stalled in a Republican filibuster in the Senate. Under the proposal, workers could unionize if they receive the signatures of a majority of workers in a bargaining unit on authorization cards rather than submit to an election.þþLabor leaders say the measure would ease employer recriminations and threats against workers; critics say it would strip workers of their right to a private vote on a union, and potentially prompt intimidation of workers pressured to sign such authorization cards. þþThe latest Maine advertisement, which features the actor Vincent Curatola, who played the mobster Johnny Sack in the “Sopranos” television series, is being paid for by the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, which lists leading national business trade associations as members of its coalition. It shows Mr. Curatola, recreating his familiar persona, favoring Mr. Allen for supporting action to “eliminate the secret ballot for workers,” while he laments the stand of Senator Susan Collins, the Republican incumbent, against the bill.þþA more extensive series of advertisements is being produced by the Employee Freedom Action Committee, which has begun television, radio and print advertising in at least seven states besides Maine. They are Colorado, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire and Oregon — all states where there are closely watched Senate races.þþThat group is headed by Richard Berman, a Washington public affairs operative who has clashed in the past with labor. Both groups are trying to deny Democrats the votes to enact the measure, which Mr. Berman portrayed as a power grab on behalf of unions by lawmakers supported by organized labor. He said backers providing the money for his campaign, which could total $30 million on its own, did not want to be identified because they feared possible retaliation.þþTo Democrats, the advertising campaigns raise alarms that intervention in Congressional races by well-financed outside groups could erase the fund-raising advantage the party has over Republican Senate and House campaign organizations. þþDemocratic strategists say independent groups are weighing in against their Senate candidates to a greater extent than they are against Republicans, with about $10 million in advertisements favoring Republicans compared with just over $3 million for Democrats so far.þþColorado’s race pitting the Democrat Mark Udall against the Republican Bob Schaffer has been ground zero for Senate third-party advertising, with at least eight groups running nearly $5 million in television spots hitting Mr. Udall on a variety of issues. Three groups have gone after Mr. Schaffer, spending about $1.4 million. This week, Freedom’s Watch, a conservative organization that has been injecting itself almost exclusively in House races, began running an advertisement against Mr. Udall on energy issues — its first television ad in a Senate race.þþOn the union vote, Democrats and labor are trying to counter the advertising with Web-based campaigns painting the two groups as proxies for big business, retailers and restaurant operators who want to block workers from unionizing, but no comparable counteradvertising has been initiated. þþIn Maine, Ms. Collins, the potential beneficiary of the advertising, has said she is opposed to such independent campaigns that are separate from the candidate or the political parties. “Senator Collins has denounced all such third-party ads,” her spokesman said. þþMr. Curatola, the actor, has also made it clear he is not taking a stand on the legislation. þþ“As a working actor, I am provided with many opportunities to appear in commercials,” he said in a statement made available by the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace. “These are business decisions and do not reflect my personal views or opinions.”þþ
Source: NY Times
