That’s from USA Today, where we told readers that union officials are buying influence with Congress: “It’s pure political payoff … The unions said, ‘We got the money. You listen to us or you’re going hungry.'”

Plus, another piece from USA Today:

One contribution to Baca from AFSCME, a check for $3,000, was dated June 14, Federal Election Commission records show — the same day Baca’s subcommittee approved his union-backed food stamp amendment.

Plus, in Denver: “Follow the money, as they say, and the answer also points to the fact that unions pay big bucks to get Democrats elected.”

Plus, even more, with a:

loan forgiveness provision raises eyebrows, and not just because it would directly benefit people who work on Capitol Hill. It’s also a tasty treat for loyal political donors such as the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU)–the largest organizations representing public service workers.

Sheesh, and another article, this one from the Washington Times on the “RESPECT” bill to unionize more nurses:

It would be quite a payoff to organized labor to be able to grab these workers away from management. They backed Democrats heavily in the last election cycle, and are now hoping to gain handsomely. At some point, though, Democrats will need to explain why unionizing white-collar professions helps achieve the goals voters sent them to Washington for. It clearly doesn’t.