Jo Ann Emerson Banks Money from Radical Unions

I’ve developed a keen interest in a certain seven-term incumbent Republican RINO Republican congresswoman during the past four weeks.  Elected to serve the people of Missouri’s 8th Congressional District, her name is Jo Ann Emerson and, during the past four election cycles, she has accepted campaign contributions from some very radical unions.

Click image to enlarge.

During her last-three re-election campaigns, according to records at, she accepted a total of $12,500 from the Service Employees International Union.  Perhaps sensing the public’s growing contempt for the SEIU, a radical labor union famous for wearing purple shirts and walking in lockstep with President Barack Obama (see video below), campaign records show she actually returned $2,500 to SEIU.  Perhaps she decided to cut her ties with the group amidst intense scrutiny of the organization by conservatives and Republicans.

During the same three election cycles, she also accepted $3,500 from a group known as UNITE HERE.  Based on a glimpse of the group’s web site, it appears the group is comprised of the same kind of people and espouses the same kinds of ideas as their SEIU brethren.  Most recently, the group made news after its members — mostly hospitality and service industry workers — walked off the job at the Hyatt Regency Chicago as a protest against work rules.

This coziness with the unions, however, should not come as a surprise to anyone who’s read other posts about Emerson and learned about the close ties her second husband, Ronald Gladney, has to labor unions, including SEIU.

I’ve published it before and I’ll publish it again:  Congressman Emerson believes in bringing home the bacon — err, uh, pork — and putting it straight into her own husband’s skillet.

3 thoughts on “Jo Ann Emerson Banks Money from Radical Unions

  1. Pingback: » Links To Visit – 05/27/10 The Progressive Hunter

  2. Bob Parker put this issue in the electronic Southeast Missourian on May 26, 2010.

    The Emerson office responded:

    “Representative Jo Ann Emerson’s office issued the following statement to the Southeast Missourian regarding Bob Parker’s submitted story:

    “HR 3963, the Preserve Benefits and Jobs Act, does not include the word “union”, authorizes no federal (taxpayer) money for a union, and the legislation has not been scored by any nonpartisan entity. $165 billion is the total underfunded amount of 108 multi-employer U.S. pensions, a figure which has no relationship to the legislation or its effect. The bill protects some benefits of Americans covered under a multi-employer pension should their employer enter bankruptcy. Though pension benefits would probably be 50 percent less, they would not be eliminated, since the partial pension obligation would be transferred to the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, which is funded by insurance contributions from employers. Single employers currently have the right to participate in the PBGC, but businesses participating in multi-employer pensions cannot.

    HR 3963 is supported by hundreds of companies, many of which are employers in the Eighth Congressional District, and national associations including Procter & Gamble, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Schnucks, Emerson, Prairie Farms and the National Association of Manufacturers.”

    Bob Miller

    Editor, Southeast Missourian

    My question: Don’t businesses participating in multi-employer pensions contribute to pension funds controlled by unions? And if their insurance comes up short, who will pay then?

  3. Pingback: Did Lloyd Smith and Jo Ann Emerson Plan This All Along? | Hennessy's View

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>