Despite loss in Arkansas, labor calls money well-spent

Labor groups dismissed notions that millions of dollars spent on a failed Senate campaign in Arkansas was a waste of money, saying that a narrow defeat in a state often hostile to unions was an impressive show of strength.

But organized labor’s Deep South spending spree, along with money spent on another failed Senate campaign last month in Pennsylvania, have left others wondering if labor’s political compass needs adjusting.

Moderate Arkansas Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln squeaked by primary challenger Lt. Gov. Bill Halter in a runoff election Tuesday, despite unions and other liberal groups pouring an estimated $10 million into Mr. Halter’s campaign.

“These are critical funds that will be unavailable for the Democrats to use against Republicans this November,” said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee chairman.

Labor groups backed Mr. Halter because they were unhappy with Mrs. Lincoln’s positions on health care reform and labor law.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said that while Mr. Halter’s defeat was disappointing, “it was still a tremendous victory for working families.”

“Taking a two-term incumbent in deep red Arkansas into a runoff, and coming within a few thousand votes of her, is a virtually unprecedented achievement,” Mr. Trumka said. “If working families were able to accomplish this in Arkansas, imagine what they can achieve in other states.”

Service Employees International Union President Mary Kay Henry said that Mr. Halter’s campaign made a “point loud and clear: If you stop fighting for working families, working families will stop fighting for you.”

Tuesday’s loss in Arkansas won’t scale back SEIU’s support of labor-friendly candidates in other races, said spokeswoman Lori Lodes.

“We’re going to continue to make sure that working people have members of Congress representing them,” Ms. Lodes said. “If that means finding another candidate to run against a Democrat, if that means challenging a Republican even harder, we’re going to do it.”

Labor’s financial support of Mr. Halter was more than just an attempt to get him elected, say some political experts. It also served as a warning to Democratic candidates nationwide to support labor causes or risk a well-funded backlash.

“In labor politics, it was really about making [Mrs. Lincoln] an example and about what happens to Democrats who are too moderate,” said Jennifer Duffy, who covers Senate races for the Cook Political Report.

While labor has denied its support of Mr. Halter was meant to be a threat to other Democratic candidates, Mr. Trumka said in his statement that it is “now abundantly clear to all politicians that if they want to get the support of working families on Election Day, they are going to need to fight for their issues every day.”

AFL-CIO said the decision on whether to support Mrs. Lincoln in her general election campaign against Republican Rep. John Boozman rests with its Arkansas affiliates. But group spokesman Josh Goldstein said he would be “highly surprised” if they support Blanche Lincoln.

Many political insiders also expect the SEIU to withhold support from Mrs. Lincoln.

Ms. Lincoln’s victory was largely the result of her being able in recent weeks to convince voters that labor was trying to buy the race, say political experts.

The incumbent, in the three weeks between the primary and runoff elections, ran ads painting unions as an unwelcome outside influence, a theme echoed by campaign appearances by former President Bill Clinton on behalf of Mrs. Lincoln.

Organized labor suffered another political miscalculation this primary season by backing Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter in his failed bid last month to win the Democratic primary.

Union endorsements in Pennsylvania, unlike Arkansas, typically hold considerable influence among Democratic voters. Yet Mr. Specter, a longtime Republican until switching to the Democratic Party last year, was soundly defeated by two-term Rep. Joe Sestak.

But Ms. Duffy cautioned against drawing too many parallels between the two union defeats.

“Specter’s [defeat] was as simple as Democratic voters were used to voting against Arlen Specter, not for him, since he’d been a Republican so long,” she said.